alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Lester Gerard PACKINGHAM.

No. 366PA13-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Glenn Gerding, Chapel Hill, for Packingham, Lester Gerard.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

David L. Elliott, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of October 2015 by Defendant to Withdraw as Private Assigned Counsel:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE v. Crystal Gail MANGUM.

No. 286P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Mangum, Crystal Gail.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill.

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

Crystal Gail Mangum, for Mangum, Crystal Gail.

Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of August 2015 by Defendant to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
RICHARDSON, et al. v. The STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 384A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 23, 2015.

Richard D. Komer, Bert Gall, John E. Branch, III, Raleigh, for Perry, Cynthia, et al.

Renee Flaherty.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, for Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education, et al.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina, et al.

Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the North Carolina State Board of Education.

Carrie Virginia McMillan, Raleigh.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, Edwin Speas, Raleigh, for Richardson, Robert (Reverend) (III), et al.

Kenneth A. Soo.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Raleigh, Stephen Martin, Charlotte, for Moore, Tim, et al.

Deborah J. Dewart, Swansboro, Kimberlee Wood Colby, Thomas C. Berg, for Chrisian Legal Society, et al.

Richard A. Vinroot, Matthew F. Tilley, Charlotte, for Pacific Legal Foundation.

Francisco M. Negron, Jr., Chad R. Donnahoo, for National School Boards Association.

Christopher A. Brook, Raleigh, Legal Director, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al.

Nickolas Sojka, Laurinburg, Michael A. Rebell, Pro Hac Vice, for Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Daniel F.E. Smith, Jill R. Wilson, Robert J. King, III, Greensboro, for Advance Education, Inc.

**Opinion**

The Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Supplemental Relief Pursuant to this Court's Writ of Supersedeas is allowed. This Court's 12 December 2014 Order is modified to allow the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority to release and disburse the funds pursuant to the statutory schedule for the 2015-16 academic year.

> "By special order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of July 2015."
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DavidJ. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partnerof ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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 ERPOP.
| /s/ David J. Neithercut |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David J. Neithercut     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| of Equity Residential   |   |
| November 6, 2006        |   |

** **

----
Debra M. DAVIS v. John Bernard DAVIS.

No. 571PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Theodore M. Molitoris, Winston-Salem, Michelle D. Reingold, for John Davis.

Daniel S. Johnson, Winston-Salem, for Debra Davis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of November 2004 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."

Defendant shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,168,609
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,768,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                   115,058
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,779,668
<PP&E>                                      92,060,330
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,833,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             102,784,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,192,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,951
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,631,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               102,784,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,133,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,660,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,487,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,868,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,518,542
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,518,542
<DISCONTINUED>                               (254,009)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,396,731)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,867,802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6954

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY LANGHORNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:02-cr-0253-JRS)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Langhorne, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Langhorne appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Langhorne, No. 3:02-cr-0253-

JRS (E.D. Va. May 27, 2008). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

(2004/C 78 E/0261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3327/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Histomoniasis (blackhead)

At present, various European countries are affected by outbreaks of blackhead (histomoniasis). Infection with this disease causes serious suffering to turkeys and ultimately massive mortality among them. As the disease is not classified as an ‘A’ disease, there are no European rules on combating it and paying compensation. However, there are European rules concerning possible prophylactics or treatments. Yet since 31 March 2003, the last remaining remedy against the disease has been prohibited.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 265, 3.10.2002.

(2)OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(3)OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(4)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Shabar MARSHALL.

No. COA15-149.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004078EN.01025501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/255 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/255

---

(2004/C 78 E/0255)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3283/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Bananas

Subject:

A type of fruit called ‘bananito’ is on the market in Padania (and probably in other places in the EU). According to the website ‘www.baby-banana.com’ indicated on the packages, this fruit belongs to a species of banana no greater than ten centimetres in length.

Could the Commission indicate whether or not this type of fruit is governed by Regulation 2257/94 (1)?

1

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

(19 November 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the products to which he refers, the so-called ‘bananitos’ or ‘baby bananas’, are bananas 8 to 12 cm long belonging to the subgroups Sweet Fig (AA) and Fig Apple and Apple-Prata (AAB). Varieties of these subgroups are not covered by the quality standards set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas. These apply only to bananas of varieties of the Musa (AAA) spp subgroups Cavendish and Gros Michel. For bananas of other varieties it is only the general foodstuff marketing requirements that have to be observed (plant and public health standards, labelling rules etc.).

---

(1)  OJ L 245, 20.9.1994, p. 6.

1

---
# C_2023127EN.01006001.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/60

---

Action brought on 2 March 2023 — Papier-Mettler v EUIPO (Shape of a carrier bag)

(Case T-114/23)

(2023/C 127/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Papier-Mettler (Morbach, Germany) (represented by: D. Graetsch and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU three-dimensional mark (Shape of a carrier bag) — Application No 18 580 606

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2022 in Case R 765/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 19

- 00414

- CR
IN RE Raymond DEBA Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 3, 2019
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On June 19, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he contends he has asked for the cost to obtain the reporter’s records in his two criminal cases but neither reporter has responded to his request. Relator does not ask for specific relief from this court; therefore, we assume he is requesting t hat this court issue a writ compelling the court reporters to provide him with information about the cost of obtaining the records. By statute, an appellate court has the power to issue a writ of mandamus against a district or county court judge. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(b). An appellate court may also issue a writ of mandamus to enforce its jurisdiction. See id. § 22.221(a). This court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk or a court reporter unless such wr it is

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2005CR0956 & 2005CR0716, styled The State of Texas v. Raymond Deba , pending in the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell presiding.04

- 19

- 00414

- CR

- 2

- necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has not asserted that the order he is requesting is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, nor has h e provided a record that would support such an argument. See Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (holding relator has burden of providing a sufficient record to establish right to mandamus relief). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ o f mandamus is dismissed.

PER CURIAM Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0310 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GALEN LEWIS HAWK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 4, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 28 2022

03/28/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0310
STATE of North Carolina v. Lenay FELTON, Defendant.

No. COA15-268.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerome SHAW, Jr.

No. COA15-573.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Canyon Copper Corp.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






PROMISSORY NOTE 

	EXECUTED BY: 	CANYON COPPER CORP. 
	  	(the "Borrower") 
	 	 
	IN FAVOUR OF: 	ANTHONY R. HARVEY 
	  	(the "Lender") 
	 	 
	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: 	$75,000 (CDN) 
	 	 
	DATE OF EXECUTION: 	November 22, 2010 
	 	 
	PLACE OF EXECUTION: 	Vancouver, British Columbia
  


FOR VALUE RECEIVED the Borrower hereby promises to pay
to or to the order of the Lender on May 22, 2012, the principal sum of $75,000
(CDN), together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum, calculated
and compounded annually, both before and after maturity from the date hereof.


The Borrower waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and
notice of dishonour and all other demands and notices in connection with the
delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory
Note. 

The Borrower agrees this Promissory Note may be negotiated,
assigned, discounted, or pledged by the Lender and in every case payment will be
made to the holder of this Promissory Note instead of the Lender upon notice
being given by the holder to the undersigned, and no holder of this Promissory
Note will be affected by the state of accounts between the undersigned and the
Lender or by any equities existing between the undersigned and the Lender and
will be deemed to be a holder in due course and for the value of the Promissory
Note held by him. 

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia this 22nd day of
November, 2010. 

CANYON COPPER CORP. 
by its authorized signatory:


/s/ Kurt Bordian 
________________________________

KURT BORDIAN
**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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald
      N. Tateishi, 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 (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/
                  DONALD N. TATEISHIDonald
                  N. Tateishi
                Chief
                  Financial OfficerJanuary
                  21, 2008







52
EXHIBIT 10.3


 


ENDORSEMENT
TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision
Optics Corporation, Inc.

New York, New York

November 15, 2010


 


The 10%
Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended
December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010 and July 26, 2010, September
15, 2010 and October 15, 2010 (the “Note”) of Precision Optics
Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of Special Situations Fund III, QP, L.P. (the “Holder”)
in an aggregate principal amount of $275,000 and to which the Endorsement is
affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                       The term “Stated
Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “November 30, 2010.”


 


2.                                       Except as
expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and
effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the
Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective
duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PRECISION OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  
	
  Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Adam Stettner

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Adam Stettner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title: General Partner
WAKE CARES, INC., Patrice Lee, individually and as guardian ad litem of her minor children, Ian Lee, Delaney Lee, Margaret Lee and Bailey Lee; Kathleen Brennan, individually and as guardian ad litem of her minor child, Elizabeth Brennan; Scott P. Haviland and Gihan I. El-Habbal, individually and as guardians ad litem of their children, Ahmed Haviland, Ayah Haviland and Iman Haviland; Michael John Stanton and Angela Marie Stanton, individually and as guardians ad litem of their children, Jacob Stanton, Alexis Stanton, Danielle Stanton, Dallas Stanton and Jordan *462Stanton; and Kimberly Sinnott and John Nadasky, individually and as guardians ad litem of their children, Reid Nadasky, Sean Nadasky, and James Nadasky, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Lori Milberg, Horace J. Tart, Carol Parker, Rosa Gill, Susan Parry, Pattie Head, Eleanor Goettee, Ron Margiotta, and Beverley Clark, in their official capacity as members of the Wake County Board of Education.

No. 230PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for Wake Care, Inc., et al.

Ann Majestic, Raleigh, for Wake Co. BOE.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 660 S.E.2d 217.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 20th day of May 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the alternative petition filed on the 20th day of May 2008 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 21st day of May 2008 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 26th day of August 2008."

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).

MARTIN, J., recused.
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 Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry
K.  Hinson,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.



/s/  Larrry K. Hinson
-------------------------------------
Larry K. Hinson,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer
June 29, 2004


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


<PAGE>
Angela Lynn FIPPS, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Aaron FISHER, Defendant.

No. COA14-1352.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Reversed and Remanded in part.