alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RUTHERFORD v. GENERAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

No. COA08-422.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CVS10323).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and Remanded.
STATE v. SADLER.

No. COA08-843.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Gaston (06CRS50697, 06CRS50698).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE J.G.L.

No. COA08-644.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Nash (06JT109).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.9
 GEORGIA-CAROLINA BANCSHARES, INC.
 DIRECTORS EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 formerly the
 DIRECTORS STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
(as amended and restated effective October 26, 2009)
  1. Title of the Plan
  2. Purposes of the Plan
  3 Administration of the Plan




---



##### 



4 Eligible Participants
  5 Method of Participation for Investing Directors Fees in Common Stock
 Investment Election
 Purchase Price of Plan Shares
 provided however further
provided
 Timing of Investments




---



##### 



Number of Shares to be Purchased
 provided however
 Reports to Participants
  Stock Certificates
  Termination of Election to Invest Directors Fees in Common Stock




---



##### 



6 Payment of Annual Retainers and Other Compensation in Common Stock
  7. Dividends
 8. Voting of Plan Shares
  9. Responsibility of the Company
  10. Termination, Suspension or Modification of the Plan
  11. General Matters
Jeffrey Franklin FELTS v. Sharon Anne FELTS.

No. 454P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Christy E. Wilhelm, Concord, for Jeffrey Felts.

William F. Rogers, Jr., Concord, for Sharon Felts.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th day of September 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher WILLIAMS.

No. 361P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Geoffrey Hosford, Wilmington, for Christopher Williams.

Laura Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of August 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
Fred WALLY, Lavon Benton, Don Crowe, and George Martocchio. v. The CITY OF KANNAPOLIS, a North Carolina Municipal Corporation.

No. 58P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

T.C. Morphis, Jr., Hickory, for Wally, Fred, et al.

Keith J. Merritt, Charlotte, for City of Kannapolis.

Rebecca K. Cheney, Charlotte, for City of Kannapolis.

Melanie J. Raubach, Charlotte, for City of Kannapolis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of February 2015 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 597

AN ACT

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer 

research for 4 years.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 597 ES

1 SECTION 1. 4-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR 

2 BREAST CANCER RESEARCH. 

3 Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’. 

Passed the Senate November 14, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 597

AN ACT

To extend the special postage stamp for breast 

cancer research for 4 years.
EXHIBIT 10.22.1

                              Kirlin Holding Corp.
                              6901 Jericho Turnpike
                             Syosset, New York 11791


                                            As of June 30, 2003


Anthony J. Kirincic

         Re:   Employment Agreements dated  August 29, 2001
               --------------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

     We refer you to your respective  Employment  Agreements with Kirlin Holding
Corp.  This  letter will serve to amend  Section 2.4 of each of your  Employment
Agreements  by deleting  the current  text of Section  2.4 in its  entirety  and
substituting the following text in its place and stead:

               "2.4 Stock Options. On the first business day of the second month
          following the end of each fiscal quarter, commencing as of the quarter
          ended June 30,  2003,  Executive  shall  receive  ten-year  options to
          purchase that number of shares of the Corporation's common stock equal
          to 0.25% of the shares of common stock of the Corporation  outstanding
          as of the  end of  such  fiscal  quarter  ("Quarterly  Options").  The
          Quarterly   Options   shall  be  issued  under  one  or  more  of  the
          Corporation's  stock  option  plans and shall have an  exercise  price
          equal to the  higher of (i) the  average  of the last sale  price of a
          share of common stock of the Corporation as reported on each of the 20
          consecutive trading days immediately preceding the grant date, or (ii)
          the last sale price on the trading day immediately preceding the grant
          date. If Executive's  employment (other than a termination for "cause"
          by the Corporation) terminates as of the last day of a fiscal quarter,
          Executive  shall  receive,  on  the  last  day of  his  employment  an
          accelerated  grant  of  options  for  such  quarter  then  ended.  All
          Quarterly  Options  so  granted  shall  vest  and  become  exercisable
          immediately  upon  grant  and  shall be  evidenced  by a Stock  Option
          Agreement in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A."

     Except as herein amended,  all other provisions of the Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.  Please  confirm  your  agreement to this
change by countersigning and returning a copy of this letter.


                                        KIRLIN HOLDING CORP.


                                    By: /s/ Barry E. Shapiro
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                    By: Barry Shapiro, Chief Financial Officer

AGREED:


By: /s/ Anthony J. Kirincic
    ----------------------------
By: Anthony J. Kirincic
Additional Investor Joinder Agreement and Co-Sale Agreement



 Exhibit 4.16 
 ADDITIONAL INVESTOR JOINDER AGREEMENT 
 JOINDER AGREEMENT (this
“Joinder Agreement”) made as of the 21st
day of April, 2010. 
 BETWEEN: 
  

	(1)	iSoftStone Holdings Limited, a Cayman Islands exempted company (the “Company”); and 


 

	(2)	JINYUAN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED



 (the “New Note Holder”). 

 RECITALS: 

 

	(A)	On the 23th day of December 2009, the Company and its Security Holders entered into that certain Second Amended and Restated Right of First Refusal and Co-Sale
Agreement (the “ROFR Agreement”). Pursuant to the ROFR Agreement, the New Note Holder to whom the Company wishes to issue up to $33 million principal amount of the Convertible Notes shall agree to be bound by and subject to the
terms and conditions of the ROFR Agreement pursuant to this Joinder Agreement. 

  

	(B)	The New Note Holder wishes to be issued to it a Convertible Note (the “Note”) in the principal amount US$4,000,000. 


 

	(C)	The Company enters this Agreement on behalf of itself and as agent for all the Security Holders. 

 NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES as follows: 
  

	1.	Interpretation. In this Agreement, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the ROFR Agreement.


  

	2.	Covenant. The New Note Holder hereby covenants to the Company as trustee for all other persons who are at present or who may hereafter become bound by the ROFR
Agreement, and to the Company itself to adhere to and be bound by and subject to all the duties, burdens and obligations of a Note Holder holding the Convertible Notes imposed pursuant to the provisions of the ROFR Agreement and all documents
expressed in writing to be supplemental or ancillary thereto as if the New Note Holder had been an original party to the ROFR Agreement. 

  

	3.	Enforceability. Each Security Holder and the Company shall be entitled to enforce the ROFR Agreement against the New Note Holder. The New Note Holder shall be
entitled to all rights and benefits of the Note Holders under the ROFR Agreement in each case as if the New Note Holder had been an original party to the ROFR Agreement. 









	4.	Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed exclusively in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regards to conflicts
of law principles. 

  

	5.	Notice. Any notice required or permitted by the ROFR Agreement shall be given to the New Note Holder at the address listed beside the New Note Holder’s
signature below. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed on the date first above written. 

 

					
	iSOFTSTONE HOLDINGS LIMITED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tianwen Liu

		 	Name:	 	
		 	Title:	 	
	
	JINYUAN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED




		
	By:	 	 /s/ Yong Tao Zhao

		 	Name:	 	Yong Tao Zhao
		 	Title:	 	
		 	Address:	 	




		
		 	Fax:
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 571 

To withdraw normal trade relations treatment from, and apply certain provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 to, the products of the 

People’s Republic of China. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To withdraw normal trade relations treatment from, and 

apply certain provisions of title IV of the Trade Act 

of 1974 to, the products of the People’s Republic of 

China. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS 

4 TREATMENT FROM THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC 

5 OF CHINA. 

6 Notwithstanding the provisions of title I of the Act 

7 to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment 

8 (normal trade relations treatment) to the People’s RepubVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:51 Feb 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S571.IS S571

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 571 IS

1 lic of China, and to establish a framework for relations 

2 between the United States and the People’s Republic of 

3 China (Public Law 106–286), or any other provision of 

4 law, effective on the date of the enactment of this Act— 

5 (1) normal trade relations treatment shall not 

6 apply pursuant to section 101 of that Act to the 

7 products of the People’s Republic of China; 

8 (2) normal trade relations treatment may there9 after be extended to the products of the People’s Re10 public of China only in accordance with the provi11 sions of sections 401 through 409 of the Trade Act 

12 of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431–2439) as in effect with re13 spect to the products of the People’s Republic of 

14 China on the day before the effective date of the ac15 cession of the People’s Republic of China to the 

16 World Trade Organization; and 

17 (3) the extension of waiver authority that was 

18 in effect with respect to the People’s Republic of 

19 China under section 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 

20 1974 on the day before the effective date of the ac21 cession of the People’s Republic of China to the 

22 World Trade Organization shall, upon the enactment 

23 of this Act, be deemed not to have expired, and shall 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 571 IS

1 continue in effect until the date that is 90 days after 

2 the date of such enactment. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
# CE2004078EN.01005401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/54

---

(2004/C 78 E/0052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1906/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   Credibility of televoting and its cost to the European public

Subject:

In recent years, the use of ‘televoting’ has become widespread, giving viewers the impression that they are directly taking part in events on the screen.

Recently (24 May 2003), something similar also occurred in the Eurovision Song Contest where — supposedly — European viewers voted for the ‘best song’. ‘Voting’ took place using dedicated lines and text messaging and lasted a total of only five minutes. The results — supposedly again — gave Turkey first place, while the Greek and Cypriot press described as extremely strange the totally unexpected high number of votes which Cyprus gave Turkey via — again supposedly — televoting. However, no details were announced of how many had ‘voted’ in each country and what independent authority had verified the reliability of the ‘voting’. Furthermore, telephone ‘voting’ and text messaging are generally very expensive services, costing in Greece on the evening of the contest up to almost EUR 0,50 (before VAT) per call or message.

Is there any Community legislation covering televoting, the method of checking the reliability of the results and the charge to each consumer using this service? Does the Commission consider, in general, that televoting is credible?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

There is no Community instrument regulating voting procedures used in connection with broadcast programmes. The Commission has no information about the reliability of SMS services for the purpose of televoting. It would be up to the organiser of the vote to ensure that the reliability of the method is commensurate with the interests at stake. The price of SMS messages is determined by the market, subject to any national obligations requiring service providers to give users prior information about the applicable tariffs.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Neithercut,Chief Financial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 
| /s/                      | David J. Neithercut |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| David J.  Neithercut     |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| of Equity  Residential   |
| August 6,  2004          |

 

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1982/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Auditing of Eurostat by the European Court of Auditors

Can the Commission say when over the last 10 years, and in what connection, Eurostat has been audited by the European Court of Auditors?

Can the Commission say whether the audits have been selective or whether the management of Eurostat has been comprehensively audited, too?

Can the Commission say what recommendations the Court of Auditors has made in its reports and sector letters and what steps have been taken by the Commission to comply with those recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

These questions were already discussed during the Budgetary Control Committee (Cocobu) meeting on 17 June 2003, and the Commission would like to refer to the written answers which the Members of the Commission gave to committee members following the meeting.

At the same time, the Commission notes that the Court of Auditors has still not published a specific audit of Eurostat's operational expenditure or of its management.

The honourable Member's attention is drawn to the recent publications by the Court of Auditors concerning Eurostat's statistical activities:

The Commission, in collaboration with the Member States, takes care to implement every recommendation by the Court in this field. In addition, it has been working with the GNP Committee since 1988 in order to ensure the quality of statistical data used for budgetary purposes, as requested by the Court in its various reports. Quality assurance procedures are currently used by Eurostat in close liaison with the statistical offices of the Member States.

----

(1)OJ C 359, 15.12.2001.

(2)OJ C 336, 27.11.2000.

(3)OJ C 342, 1.12.2000.

(4)OJ C 349, 17.11.1998.

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 27, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2550

Lower Tribunal No. 11-26509B

________________

Theodore Griffin,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Theodore Griffin, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before SHEPHERD, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Following review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, it is ordered that

said petition is hereby denied.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Furthermore, as it appears that Theodore Griffin has submitted multiple pro

se post-conviction appeals,1 we order Mr. Griffin to show good cause within thirty

(30) days why this Court should not prohibit him from submitting further pro se

appeals, petitions, motions or other proceedings relating to his criminal sentencing

in circuit court case number 11-26509, unless such pleadings are signed by an

attorney who is a duly licensed member of the Florida Bar in good standing. After

this order to show cause and giving Mr. Griffin an opportunity to respond, this

Court may prevent such further filings. We must balance Mr. Griffin’s pro se right

to access the courts with the Court’s need to devote its finite resources to

legitimate appeals, recognizing the seriousness of sanctions when the litigant is a

criminal defendant. State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999).

1

 A non-exhaustive list of pro se post-conviction appeals filed by the defendant

include: 3D11-3097; 3D12-251; 3D12-1309; 3D12-2000; 3D12-3172; 3D13-97;

3D13-1164; 3D13-3093; 3D14-1831; 3D15-952; 3D15-1721; 3D15-2512; 3D15-

2550; and 3D15-2921.

2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                   CNA SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
                (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   September 30,
                                                                     Date of    
                                                                    Inception,  
                                                                     through    
                                                                   December 31, 
                                                                       1997   
                                                                   -------------
<S>                                                                <C>
Net income .......................................................    $ 10,996
                                                                      ========
Shares: 
Weighted average shares outstanding ..............................      43,294

Weighted average shares of options exercised .....................           8
                                                                      --------

Total weighted average shares outstanding ........................      43,302

Effect of dilutive options .......................................         250
                                                                      --------

Total weighted average shares outstanding, assuming dilution .....      43,552
                                                                      ========

Earnings per share ...............................................    $   0.25
                                                                      ========

Earnings per share, assuming dilution ............................    $   0.25
                                                                      ========
</TABLE>