alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Felix Ricardo SALDIERNA.

No. 271PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

W. Rob Heroy, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Saldierna, Felix.

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

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 3rd of August 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of August 2015 by State of NC 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE v. Terrence M. WHITAKER.

No. 374P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of August 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

*530"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
EXHIBIT 32.2


                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

           CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL MATURO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
    TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
        THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

         I, Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner
of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1)          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
            period ended September 30, 2003 (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 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.

Dated:  November 14, 2003            RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

                                     By:  Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,
                                             its sole general partner


                                     By:  /s/ Michael Maturo
                                          -------------------------------
                                          Michael Maturo, Executive Vice
                                           President, Treasurer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2023035EN.01006601.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/66

---

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Durie v Commission

(Case T-705/22)

(2023/C 35/83)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Durie — Trading e Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject:   European Year of Remembrance and Reconciliation

Given that the year 2005 will have special significance as the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, what plans does the Commission have to further the theme of reconciliation and remembrance and does the Commission plan to link these themes with the enlargement of the Union?

How does the Commission react to proposals for an event to be held at Cassino in Italy to mark the 60th anniversary of the infamous battle that took place there?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1954/02 by Mr Ford (1)

----

(1)  See page 4.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Mitchell BROOKS.

No. 286P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Kristen L. Todd, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Brooks.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of June 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."
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arunava De, VP of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) TheReport 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

March 27, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FINK v. GOODYEAR TIRE, et al.

No. 12P09.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2009.

Gina Cammarano, Raleigh, for Fink.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of January 2009 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of January 2009."

HUDSON, J., recused.
----

(2004/C 65 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1874/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Prospectus approval

Will the Commission estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a prospectus typically necessary both for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The Commission has not sought to estimate the current time period from submission to approval of a prospectus typically necessary for debt and for equity prospectuses in each Member State. The Commission position does not consider that such average figure, even at Member State level, would lead to any useful conclusions.

Such figures would not be comparable, because the approval process is different in each Member State (In practice, scrutiny practices will range from a simple verification that a document has been sent to the competent authority, without reading the document, to an extensive verification of the clearness, objectivity, accuracy and consistency of the prospectus on all items of information, including the financial statements). These differences arise most notably from differences in the level of civil and regulatory liability between Member States.

At national level, the time period necessary for scrutiny in order to obtain an approval will also differ on a case by case basis depending notably on the quality of the submitted draft document, on its size, on its content, on the ability of the issuer to draft such a document, on its knowledge of the necessary procedure, on the existence of a previously approved prospectus, on the type of offers (for example Initial Primary Offer or frequent issue), on the resources of the competent authority, etc.

Therefore, the Commission did not propose legislation with a one-size-fits-all approach. The Commission has favoured different maximum time limits for this scrutiny and approval process. It intends to prevent competent authorities from imposing excessive delays on issuers but it should also allow competent authorities enough time in all possible circumstances to correctly perform their tasks.

The Commission has checked the different maximum time limits for a prospectus approval before the adoption of its amended proposal and has taken into consideration the various maximum time limits existing in several Member States. The Commission has also taken into account the fact that the envisaged maximum time limits were shorter compared to the existing ones in the United States which is the world biggest capital market. The proposed time limits are also shorter compared to the existing ones in Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and the United Kingdom. However, the maximum time limits are more currently stringent in Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. In some Member States (notably Denmark, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden), the law does not provide for a defined maximum time limit.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin P. Karas, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 217]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered May 20, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and petit larceny.

*1361It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [4]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for a missing witness charge with respect to the People’s failure to call his alleged accomplice as a witness at trial. We reject that contention. Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the witness would provide testimony that was favorable to the People’s position *(see People v DeNormand,*1 AD3d 1047, 1049, *lv denied*1 NY3d 626 [2004]; *People v Wynn,*277 AD2d 946 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 765 [2001]; *see generally People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 427-428 [1986]).

Insofar as defendant raises issues with respect to the court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, those issues are not properly before us on this appeal from the judgment of conviction. In addition, we reject defendant’s contention that reversal is required based on juror misconduct inasmuch as defendant failed to establish that any alleged misconduct by a juror “may have affected a substantial right” (CPL 330.30 [2]; *see People v Clark,*81 NY2d 913, 914-915 [1993]). Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Wayne MIMS.

No. 249P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Mims, Donald Wayne.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill.

Kathy M. McCraw, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for thethree months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, VincentL. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and RichardJ. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companyhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

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

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 1, 2010 | /s/  Vincent L. Sadusky                            |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Vincent  L. Sadusky                                |
|                          | President  and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                          |                                               |
|                          |                                               |
| Dated:  November 1, 2010 | /s/  Richard J. Schmaeling                         |
|                          | Richard  J. Schmaeling                             |
|                          | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
In re the FORECLOSURE OF BROWN.

No. 224PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Wilder Wadford, Weaverville, for Brown, Grover C., et al.

Adam W. Bull, Asheville, for Almond, Nelson T. (Executor), et al.

John R. Dillard, for First Choice Title, LLC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Petitioners (Grover & Margaret Brown) to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# C_2023252EN.01007701.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/77

---

Action brought on 30 May 2023 — Dornbracht v EUIPO — Marco Mammoliti (SINQUE)

(Case T-300/23)

(2023/C 252/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dornbracht AG & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Mammoliti SpA (Aosta, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SINQUE — Application for registration No 18 261 008

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2023 in Case R 1374/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul and alter orders No 1, No 2 and No 3 of the contested decision, thereby rejecting the appeal before the Board of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Opposition Division and rejecting the EUTM application; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul and alter orders No 1, No 2 and No 3 of the contested decision, thereby rejecting the appeal before the Board of Appeal, upholding the decision of the Opposition Division and rejecting the EUTM application;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. Derek Scott McQUEEN.

No. 101P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2007.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 639 S.E.2d 131.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of April 2007 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of April 2007."
BRADLEY v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SER.

No. 425P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 30, 2008.

Susan J. Vanderweert, Raleigh, for Maxim Healthcare.

William G. Goldston, Durham, for Bradley.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of September 2008 by Defendants (Maxim Healthcare & A.I. South Ins. Co.) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of September 2008."
**Exhibit 10.27**

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT**

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the“AMENDMENT”) is dated as of December 3, 2007, and amends that certain Employment Agreement (the “AGREEMENT”) executed June 8, 2005, and effective as of April 1, 2005, by and between ENHERENT CORP., a Delawarecorporation (the “COMPANY”) and PAMELA A. FREDETTE (the “EXECUTIVE”). 

**W I T N E S S E T H:**

**WHEREAS**, the parties desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section 14(a) thereof as of the date hereof. 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy ofwhich are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 

1. Amendment. Section 1(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety andreplaced with the following: 

(a) The term of this Agreement (the “TERM”) shall commence on April 1, 2005 (the“EFFECTIVE DATE”) and, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 4 below and subject to Section 1(b) below, end at 11:59 PM, March 31, 2010.” 

2. Affirmation of Agreement. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date hereof, each reference to the Agreement and the documents or instrumentsreferred to or provided for in or delivered under the Agreement shall be deemed to refer to the Agreement as modified hereby. 

3. Conflict. In theevent of a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. 

4. Definitions. All capitalized terms used herein, except as specifically provided herein, have the same meanings as those in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive’s hand and, pursuant to the authorization of its Board, the Company has caused thisAmendment to be executed in its name on its behalf.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Edward Barnes, Chief Financial Officer 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 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 result of operations of the
Company. /s/ Edward A. Barnes Edward A. Barnes
Chief Financial Officer
August 3, 2004
DARBY v. CAMPBELL, et al.

No. 171P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Arthur Donald Darby, Jr., Fayetteville, for Darby, Arthur Donald (Jr.).

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Plaintiff for Error Coram Vobis:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."