alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (i)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December      31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date      hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company.                                                                                                                                                   |

|   | By:  | /s/      ANTHONY PRINCIPE    |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------|
|   |      | Anthony      Principe        |
|   |      | Chief      Financial Officer |
|   |      | On2      Technologies, Inc.  |
Pickering Pafraguirre

41"4.••••••••• ■ •• ■ • ■ 94.4-4w The only issue on appeal that has not arguably been rendered moot is whether respondent mediated in bad faith. Appellants contend that respondent mediated in bad faith because respondent did not orally disclose the full terms of a written modification offer until the end of the mediation. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's determination that this shortcoming did not amount to bad-faith mediation. Edelstein, 128 Nev. at , 286 P.3d at 260 (indicating that a district court's factual determinations will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to not impose sanctions on respondent. Id.

It is so ORDERED.

Saitta cc: Hon. Kathleen B. Delaney, District Judge Hafter Law RCO Legal, P.S. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A e04
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132674 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132674 

 COA: 273382 
 Wayne CC: 01-003908-01

LAVERE D. LEE-BRYANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Rita Rochelle MILES v. Kevin KOON and Encircle, LLC.

No. 287P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Joe T. Millsaps, Ashley E. Bratton, Charlotte, for Miles.

Edward J. McNaughton, Gregory L. Shelton, Charlotte, for Koon, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of June 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 26th day of August 2008."
<Page>

Exhibit 4.1

FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF COMMON STOCK

NUMBER
C-

SHARES


See Reverse for
Certain Definitions


Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware

enherent Corp.

50,000,000 Shares $.001 Par Value

Voting Common Stock

THIS SECURITY HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED OR QUALIFIED UNDER ANY STATE OF FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS AND IS BEING SOLD PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS FROM
REGISTRATION OR QUALIFICATION. THE TRANSFER OF THIS SECURITY IS RESTRICTED.
SEE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS OR SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT FOR DETAILS.

This is to certify that


is the owner of


Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of Voting Common Stock of
enherent Corp.

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder thereof in
person or by a duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed.

Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized
officers.

Dated


Secretary


President

<Page>

The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

    TEN COM       -  as tenants in common
    TEN ENT       -  as tenants by the entireties
    JT TEN        -  as joint tenants with right of
                     survivorship and not as tenants
                     in common


    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -     Custodian
                      (Cust)               (Minor)
                 under Uniform Gifts to Minors
                 Act
                            (State)

    Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.


For value received ____________ hereby sell, assign, and transfer unto

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE



(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF
ASSIGNEE)






    Shares

represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint

    Attorney

to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises

    Dated:

         In presence of
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors of Fina Europe NV
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina SA on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form F-20 of PetroFina SA for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Fina Europe NV as of
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements of income for each
of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1998.
 
March 22, 1999
Antwerp, Belguim
 
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Reviseurs d'Enterprises
Represented by
 
/s/ L. RUYSEN
 
L. Ruysen
STATE v. Charles Anthony BALL.

No. 102P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 28, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Anthony Ball, Spruce Pine, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of May 2015 by Defendant for Appointment of Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Christy Bradley MARKHAM.

No. COA14-1331.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General James Bernier, Jr., for the State.

David M. Black for defendant-appellant.

BRYANT, Judge.

Where case precedent has established that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to set aside an inconsistent verdict, and where defendant cannot cite any case law in support of her argument on appeal, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

A jury found defendant Christy Bradley Markham guilty of sale of morphine, a Schedule II controlled substance, upon evidence that she gave an undercover police officer twenty morphine pills in exchange for $200 on 6 March 2012. The same jury found defendant not guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver morphine. The trial court suspended a prison sentence of nine to twenty months and placed defendant on thirty months of supervised probation. Defendant appeals.

_________________________

In her sole issue on appeal, defendant claims the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the jury's verdict as inconsistent with the evidence. Specifically, defendant argues that the two charges, of possession with intent to sell or deliver morphine and sale of morphine, presented the jury with an "all or nothing case, either guilty of both or not guilty." We disagree.

Although defendant challenges the perceived inconsistency between the two verdicts, defendant also acknowledges that her appeal is controlled by *State v. Mumford,*364 N.C. 394, 699 S.E.2d 911 (2010). In *Mumford,*our Supreme Court explained the distinction "between verdicts that are merely inconsistent and those which are legally inconsistent *and*contradictory." *Id.*at 398, 699 S .E.2d at 914 (citations omitted). Inasmuch as the jury did not find defendant guilty of two mutually exclusive offenses, such as murder and accessory after the fact to the same murder, "this case presents nothing 'more than mere inconsistency,' [and] defendant is not entitled to relief." *Id.*at 401, 699 S.E.2d at 916 (quoting *State v. Meshaw,*246 N.C. 205, 207, 98 S.E.2d 13, 15 (1957), *overruled in part on other grounds by**State v. Speckman,*326 N.C. 576, 580, 391 S.E.2d 165, 168 (1990) ). Moreover, we note that defendant has failed to cite any case law in support of her argument on appeal, in violation of N.C. R.App. P. 28 (2014) (issues for which no supporting case law is given will be deemed abandoned). Accordingly, defendant's argument is overruled.

NO ERROR.

Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 May 2014 by Judge James W. Morgan in Lincoln County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 June 2015.
STATE of North Carolina v. Antwan L. ASH.

No. 528P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Barbara S. Blackman, Durham, for Ash.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 668 S.E.2d 65.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of December 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 *364order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Anthony WOOD.

No. 147P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Carlos Mahoney, Durham, for Wood.

Kathryn Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of April 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 11th day of June 2008."
STATE v. Gregory ROBINSON, Jr.

No. 250P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of June 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review (N.C. Gen.Stat. 7A-31, Rule 15 N.C.R.A.P.):

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of October 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Ronald BOWMAN.

No. 105P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Bowman.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 638.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 24th day of March 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
#### In the Matter of Jondalle P., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 152]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Susan R. Larabee, J.), entered on or about March 22, 2004, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence *836and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The officer’s observations warranted the conclusion that appellant was in possession of marijuana in a public place, and that the marijuana was open to public view *(see*Penal Law § 221.10 [1]; *Matter of Michael I.,*309 AD2d 598 [2003]).

We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jakiem Lance WILSON.

No. 239P10-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 3, 2015.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jakiem Lance Wilson, Bayboro, for Wilson, Jakiem Lance.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of July 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered *837and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of August 2015."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5193-5194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1826]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Large Scale Centers for the Protein 
Structure Initiative.
    Date: February 21-23, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: C Craig Hyde, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of

[[Page 5194]]

General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Building 
45, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-3825, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45262d7733052b2c2d6b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6102095317210f08094f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers, 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1826 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rene Matos, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 513]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 22, 2003, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea of guilty before he was sentenced so as to preserve his claim that his plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly made *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662 [1988]; *People v Hull,*300 AD2d 411 [2002]; *People v Harris,*291 AD2d 458 [2002]; *People v Nieves,*289 AD2d 342 [2001]). Further, the defendant’s valid and unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal precludes appellate review of his claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733 [1998]; *People v Headley,*289 AD2d 341 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 513 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 513

To amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous authority on 
  the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to address interference 
           with State or Federal law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2007

  Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Bond) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous authority on 
  the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to address interference 
           with State or Federal law, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REVIVAL OF PREVIOUS AUTHORITY ON USE OF ARMED FORCES AND 
              MILITIA TO ADDRESS INTERFERENCE WITH STATE OR FEDERAL 
              LAW.

    (a) Repeal of Amendments Made by Public Law 109-364.--Section 1076 
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007 (Public Law 109-364), and the amendments made by that section, are 
repealed.
    (b) Revival of Previous Authority.--The provisions of chapter 15 of 
title 10, United States Code, that were amended by section 1076 of the 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as 
such provisions were in effect on the day before the date of the 
enactment of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007, are hereby revived.
    (c) Clerical Amendments.--
            (1) Heading amendment.--The heading of chapter of 15 of 
        title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION''.
            (2) Clerical amendments.--(A) The tables of chapters at the 
        beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at 
        the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by 
        striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the 
        following new item:

``15. Insurrection..........................................     331''.
            (B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of 
        such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 
        333 and inserting the following new item:

``333. Interference with State and Federal law.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. JONES

No. COA06-1718

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Robeson (04CRS53644).

Decision without published opinion. No error.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18290]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies; Cancellation 
of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the devastating 
impact of Hurricane Katrina has forced the cancellation of the Advisory 
Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies meeting previously scheduled 
for Thursday, September 29, 2005, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., at the VA 
Gulf Coast Veterans Health Care System, Building 17, Recreation Hall, 
400 Veterans Avenue, Biloxi, MS.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on proposed business plans at those VA facility 
sites identified in May 2004 as requiring further study by the Capital 
Asset Realignment for Enhanced Series (CARES) Decision document.
    For additional information regarding this matter, please contact 
Mr. Jay Halpern, Designated Federal Officer, (00CARES), 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024 by phone at (202) 273-5994, or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345e554d1a5c55584451465a7442551a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="167c776f387e777a6673647856607738717960">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 9, 2005.

E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18290 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
PUGH v. WILLIAMS.

No. COA08-322.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Randolph (06CVS1574).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.