alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Carlton Washington TOMLINSON.

No. 319P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 10, 2015.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Tomlinson, Carlton Washington.

*514Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General.

Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of September 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of September 2015."
No. 3 February 5, 2015 687

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON,

Petitioner on Review,

v.

JERRIN LAVAZIE HICKMAN,

aka Jerrim Lavezie Hickman,

Respondent on Review.

(CC 081235225; CA A144741; SC S061409)

En Banc

On respondent on review’s petition for reconsideration 

filed September 11, 2014.*

Ryan Scott, Scott and Huggins Law Offices, Portland, 

filed the petition for reconsideration for respondent on 

review.

No appearance contra.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former 

opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.

Petitioner sought reconsideration of the former opinion of the court in a criminal matter, taking exception to the court’s analysis and disposition regarding 

the admission of certain eyewitness testimony. Held: Petitioner correctly noted 

that the court’s former opinion contained a factual inaccuracy, which the court 

corrected on reconsideration. The court rejects petitioner’s remaining arguments 

without discussion.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified 

and adhered to as modified.

______________

* 355 Or 715, 330 P3d 551 (2014); on review from the Court of Appeals, 255 

Or App 688, 298 P3d 619 (2013).
688 State v. Hickman

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this court’s decision in State v. Hickman, 355 Or 715, 330 P3d 551 (2014), a 

criminal case. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner takes 

exception to our analysis and disposition regarding the 

admission of certain eyewitness testimony. With regard to 

that argument, we affirm our previous decision without further discussion.

Petitioner also notes that our opinion incorrectly 

stated that “[Dontae] Porter testified that, after shooting 

Monette, defendant walked into the street and fired several 

shots in the air.” See id. at 717. The attribution of that testimony was incorrect; the record shows that another witness, 

not Porter, testified to that effect. Defendant makes no additional argument concerning that factual error; in particular, he does not assert that the misattribution to Porter of 

the quoted testimony affected our analysis or disposition of 

the case. It did not. However, for the sake of accuracy, we 

allow this petition for reconsideration and modify our decision to delete the quoted sentence.

The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
EXHIBIT 13.(a).1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Tefron Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 28, 2007

                                                         /s/ Yosef Shiran
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Yosef Shiran
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 28, 2007
                                                         /s/ Asaf Alperovitz
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Asaf Alperovitz
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The undersigned executive officer of Community Investors Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB
for the period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

                                       /s/ John W. Kennedy
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Name: John W. Kennedy
                                       Title: President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer

Date: May 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Community Investors Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
ex10-1.htm


 


Exhibit 10.1


 



WAIVER AND CONSENT







This Waiver and Consent is made as of the 24 day of November, 2010 by and among Aruze USA, Inc. (“Aruze”), Stephen A. Wynn (“SW”) and Elaine P. Wynn (“EW”).







RECITALS








	
  

	
A.

	
Aruze, SW and EW are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Stockholders’ Agreement dated as of January 6, 2010, modified by a Release dated April 14, 2010 (together, the “Agreement”).













	
  

	
B.

	
The Agreement provides that each party is required to obtain prior written consent of the others to Transfer any shares of Wynn Resorts, Limited (“WRL”) subject to the Agreement.













	
  

	
C.

	
Prior to the date hereof, SAW and EW collectively have obtained a release of 2,445,805 shares of common stock of WRL from the terms of the Agreement and Aruze has obtained the release of 2,000,000 shares from the terms of the Agreement.













	
  

	
D.

	
The parties have each consented to the Transfer by each of them of up to certain shares of WRL common stock currently subject to the Agreement.












Now therefore, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
Definitions.  All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement.













	
  

	
2.

	
Consent.  Each of SW and EW consents to the Transfer by Aruze of up to 1,445,805 shares of common stock of WRL currently subject to the Agreement and Aruze, and SW and EW each consent to the Transfer by SW and EW of up to 1,000,000 shares of common stock of WRL currently subject to the Agreement and each confirms that such shares of common stock of WRL shall be released from all terms and restrictions set forth in the Agreement upon a Transfer.  It is understood and agreed that until any such Transfer, the shares shall remain subject to all terms and restrictions set forth in the Agreement.












In witness whereof, the parties have set their hand to this Agreement on the day and year first written above.








	  	
Aruze USA, Inc.


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By:  

	
/s/ Kazuo Okada


	  	
Name:  Kazuo Okada, President




























	  	
/s/ Stephen A. Wynn

	  	
/s/ Elaine P. Wynn


	  	
Stephen A. Wynn

	  	
Elaine P. Wynn
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended October 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Clarence H.
Thiesen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my
best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The Report fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  
|
| | (2) The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Clarence H. Thiesen
| | Clarence H. Thiesen    
| | Chief Executive Officer

January 29, 2004
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 connection with the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PETER PAPANO                                              
|Peter Papano Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer August 6, 2007
CMF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 17-0033

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHANE CLARK JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including September 3, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 20 2020

08/20/2020

Case Number: DA 17-0033
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2018

No . 04

- 17

- 00739

- CV

Edward R MEZA , Jr., Sylvia Meza and New Braunfels Home Health Inc.

, Appellants

v.

Gloria BURNS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV00380 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presidin g



### O R D E R

By order dated May 31, 2018, appellant was ordered to show cause by June 15, 2018, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution for failing to timely file the appellant’s brief. Appellant filed a response stating the attorney erroneously calendared the deadline for filing the brief. Appellant filed his brief with his response. The appeal is

RETAINED on the docket of the court.

Although appellant’s brief contains an appendix, the appendix does not contain a copy of the trial court’s judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(k). Although the Court is not ordering the appellant to rebrief at this time , appellant is instructed to file an appendix containing the trial court’s judgment within ten d ays from the date of this order. This order does not affect the deadline for the filing of the appellee’s brief which is due to be filed no later than July 16, 2018

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# CE2004084EN.01004901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/49

---

(2004/C 84 E/0055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) and Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Vehicle emissions outside of the test cycle

Subject:

Pollution readings carried out by the German Federal Environmental Agency have shown that cars usually considered to be particularly environmentally friendly only keep within the EU's strict exhaust emission limits up to a speed of 120 km/h. Beyond that, however, emission levels rise many times over, proving that the cars concerned are not so environmentally friendly after all.

Is the Commission aware of this phenomenon?

Does the Commission intend to take account of emissions outside of the test cycle in its anticipated proposal for a future Euro V category of exhaust emission limits for cars, and will it restrict the extent to which the applicable limits are exceeded?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware that some motor vehicles can modulate the emission performance in certain driving conditions that are not covered by the present type-approval emissions test.

Emissions outside the test cycle are one of the issues on the agenda of the working group on Euro V standards that has been set up under the Motor Vehicles Emissions Group.

---
AMB PROPERTY, L.P.
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Operating
Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
  /s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAMHamid R. MoghadamChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer /s/ THOMAS S. OLINGERThomas S. OlingerChief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01051801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/518 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/518

---

(2004/C 78 E/0538)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3306/03

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Fluoride in drinking water

Subject:

The 1998 Drinking Directive (98/83/EC (1)) lays down a limit of 1,5 milligrams per litre for fluoride in drinking water.

1

Can the Commission provide the number of Member States, or regions within Member States, that currently add fluoride to their drinking water supply? What are the rights of EU citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water?

Given the planned revision of Directive 98/83/EC, does the Commission foresee a change in the parametric values for fluoride?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

Fluoridation is currently allowed in four Member States (Germany, Spain, United Kingdom and Ireland); in the three first countries the decision to add fluoride is left to the local/regional authorities. In Italy, there is no specific law banning or authorising fluoridation. The situation at the regional level is not known by the Commission. The issue of the rights of Union citizens concerning the addition of fluoride to their drinking water is outside the formal scope of implementation of the Directive on the quality of drinking water and the matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States' responsibility.

At this stage, where compliance with the standards fixed by Directive 98/83/EC (2) should be achieved by 25 December 2003, it is premature to foresee any change for any parametric value.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.

1

(2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

2

---
Derrick Lamont TAYLOR v. HARNETT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Jacqualyn L. Lee.

No. 330P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Derrick Lamont Taylor, for Taylor, Derrick Lamont.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Harnett County Superior Court.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 23rd of September 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Harnett County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
# CE2004065EN.01006101.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/61

---

(2004/C 65 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Community funding for Spain

Subject:

Can the Commission forward, to the author of this question, a full list of all hydrological infrastructure schemes for which funding has been requested by the Spanish central government under the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund (for 2000-2006), in the context of major projects, whether planned on an individual basis or included in measures under the operative programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

(12 May 2003)

As established in Article 14.3: ‘Information and publicity’ of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1), amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 (2) and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 (3), the Commission publishes yearly in the Official Journal of the European Union the main points of Decisions granting financial assistance under the above mentioned Regulation.

1

2

3

Official Journal of the European Union

The information is classified by country and by field of assistance. The fields dealing with ‘water supply and water quality’ and with ‘waste-water disposal and treatment’ include the information regarding the hydrological infrastructure schemes financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The information for Spain is published in the following Official Journals of the European Union:

| — | Year 2000: OJ C 361, 17.12.2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Year 2000: OJ C 361, 17.12.2001;

| — | Year 2001: OJ C 126, 28.5.2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Year 2001: OJ C 126, 28.5.2002.

The information corresponding to the year 2002, already sent for publication, is enclosed in the Annex I of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Projects for which financing has been requested but which are still under consideration or have been approved in 2003 are set out in Annex II of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Regarding projects financed by the European Regional Development Fund under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (4), the Member State is only obliged to communicate to the Commission its requests for the co-financing of major projects. Information on such projects is enclosed in Annex III of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

4

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

1

(2)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

2

(3)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

3

(4)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

4

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00082-CV

Pate-Chen Investment, LLC and Dar-Sheng Chen, Appellants

v.

Randy Patton, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C2006-0778B, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have informed the Court that they no longer wish to pursue this appeal

because the parties have “settled their dispute in its entirety.” Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 42.1 and 43.2(e), the parties have filed an agreed motion requesting the Court to vacate

the trial court’s judgment, dismiss the appeal, and order the release of appellants’ supersedeas bond.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(e); Young Materials Corp. v. Smith, 4 S.W.3d 84, 84-85

(Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.) (appellate court may vacate trial court judgment and dismiss

appeal upon parties’ motion); American Habilitation Servs., Inc. v. Peterson, No. 01-07-00791-CV,

2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 1800, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (appellate court

may authorize release of supersedeas bond upon dismissal of appeal). We grant the parties’ motion

and hereby vacate the trial court’s judgment, release the pending supersedeas bond to Kurt H. Kuhn,

counsel for the appellants, and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(e).
2

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Vacated and Cause Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: August 28, 2008
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2373 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2373 of 26 November 2015 adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community            importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (notified under document C(2015) 8219) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2373                     

# of 26 November 2015

# adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region

# *(notified under document C(2015) 8219)* (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2335 of 9 December 2016 adopting a tenth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (notified under document C(2016) 8193).
GOODWIN v. SMITH.

No. 398P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, for Smith, Norman B.

Wesley Goodwin, Greensboro, for Goodwin, Wesley Foust-Graham.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of September 2015 by Plaintiff to Toll the 30 Days Filing Rule:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
STATE v. Shawn Louis GOODMAN.

No. 358P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Shawn L. Goodman, Polkton, for Goodman, Shawn L.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of October 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."