alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXECUTION - Administrative Services Agreement  (00134162.DOC;4)


December __, 2010

FWC Management Services Ltd

Palm Grove House, Palm Grove Park

Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands



RE:

FLATWORLD ACQUISITION CORP.

Gentlemen:




This letter will confirm our agreement, effective on the date (the “Effective Date”) of the initial public offering (“IPO”) of the securities of FlatWorld Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier to occur of: (i) the consummation of a Business Transaction (as described in the Registration Statement), (ii) 21 months from the Effective Date, and (iii) the date on which the Company ceases its corporate existence in accordance with its Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association, FWC Management Services Ltd shall make available to the Company office space and, if necessary, access to facilities located in other jurisdictions, as well as for certain general and administrative services, including but not limited to receptionist, secretarial and general office services.  In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay FWC Management Services Ltd the sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter.




FWC Management Services Ltd hereby irrevocably waives any and all right, title, interest, causes of action and claims of any kind (each, a “Claim”) in or to, and any and all right to seek payment of any amounts due to it out of, the trust account established for the benefit of the public shareholders of the Company and into which substantially all of the proceeds of the Company’s IPO will be deposited (the “Trust Account”), and hereby irrevocably waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, this agreement, which Claim would reduce, encumber or otherwise adversely affect the Trust Account or any monies or other assets in the Trust Account, and further agrees not to seek recourse, reimbursement, payment or satisfaction of any Claim against the Trust Account or any monies or other assets in the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.

This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the British Virgin Islands, without regard to conflicts of laws principles.




Very truly yours, 




		
	 
	FLATWORLD ACQUISITION CORP.




By:  ________________________

Name:  Jeffrey A. Valenty

Title:   President


	Accepted and agreed:

FWC Management Services Ltd




By:  ________________________

Name:  Raj K. Gupta

Title:
RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
    CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL MATURO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, TREASURER AND
           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
     THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF THE REGISTRANT, 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, 2004 (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 2, 2004
                                    By          /s/ Michael Maturo
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President,
                                      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                      of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the
                                      sole general partner of the Registrant


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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136642 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136642 

 COA: 284627 

Kent CC: 07-012052-FH 

07-012053-FH 

DEMON SHONTA ATKINS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
WILKES v. CITY OF GREENVILLE.

No. 368PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

Anita B. Hunt, for Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Raleigh, for City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

J. Timothy Wilson, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

*94Bruce A. Hamilton, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Christine Teresa Scheef, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

Angela Farag Craddock, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of May 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of May 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of May 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW157570]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW157570 from Rocky 
Mountain Land & Leasing, Inc. for lands in Hot Springs County, Wyoming. 
The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals 
due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW157570 effective April 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-18453 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
BUTTERFIELD v. WILLIAMSON.

No. COA07-1488.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Polk (05CVS268).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00099

- CR

DAVID CORTEZ
, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019

- 2049

- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this matter, appellant, David Cortez, challenges the trial court’s denial of his pro

se “M otion for I mposition of C ommunity S upervision ( S hock P robation). ” “The right to

appeal is conferred by the Legislature, and a party may appeal only that which the

Legislature has authorized.” Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Tex. App.

— San

Antonio 1999, no pet.) (citing Marin v. State , 851 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)).

There is no statutory authority for appealing from an order denying shock probation. SeeCortez v. State Page 2

Houlihan v. State , 579 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d

2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 197 7); see also Dodson , 988 S.W.2d at 834 (holding that an appellate

court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a motion for shock probation).

Therefore, b ecause the denial of a motion for shock probation is not an appealable order,

we dis miss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1

JOHN E. NEILL Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

, Justice Neill,

a nd Justice Johnson A ppeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 12, 2021 Do not publish [CR 25 ]

1 It is also noteworthy that the record contains the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right of appeal, which indicates that appellant has waived his right of appeal.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40033 

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADOLFO GARCIA-SOSA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-323-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adolfo Garcia-Sosa

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia-Sosa has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 488 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 488

To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site 
        in the State of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 5, 2007

  Mrs. Dole (for herself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise the boundary of the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site 
        in the State of North Carolina, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 
Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. CARL SANDBURG HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE BOUNDARY REVISION.

    Public Law 90-592 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; 82 Stat. 1154) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 3 as section 4; and
            (2) by inserting after section 2 the following:

``SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in 
this section as the `Secretary') may acquire from willing sellers by 
donation or purchase with donated or appropriated funds not more than 
115 acres of land (including any improvements to the land) or interests 
(including conservation easements) in land contiguous to the Carl 
Sandburg Home National Historic Site (referred to in this section as 
the `Historic Site') for inclusion in the Historic Site.
    ``(b) Visitor Center.--Not more than 5 acres of land acquired under 
subsection (a) may be used for--
            ``(1) a visitor and education center; and
            ``(2) a visitor parking area.
    ``(c) Boundary Revision.--On acquisition of any land or interest in 
land under subsection (a), the Secretary shall revise the boundary of 
the Historic Site to reflect the acquisition.
    ``(d) Administration.--Any land acquired by the Secretary under 
subsection (a) shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the 
Historic Site.
    ``(e) Applicable Law.--Sections 302, 303, and 304 of the National 
Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625; 92 Stat. 3467) 
shall apply to the acquisition of land under subsection (a) and the 
boundary revision under subsection (c), except that the reference in 
section 302 of that Act to the date of enactment shall be considered to 
be a reference to the date of enactment of the Carl Sandburg Home 
National Historic Site Boundary Revision Act of 2007.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 v. Eugene Tyrone MILLER.

No. 453P02-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Eugene Tyrone Miller, for Miller, Eugene Tyrone.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of July 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> *853"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

20 November 2007

Case T-103/05

**P**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Officials – Remuneration – Unauthorised absence – Loss of the benefit of remuneration – Article 59 of the Staff Regulations – Medical certificate)

**Application:**for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 May 2004 declaring the applicant’s absence improper from 16 March 2004 and
suspending payment of her salary from 15 April 2004 until the date on which she commenced performing her duties at the DG
Press and Communication in Brussels.

**Held:**The application is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Decision adversely affecting an official – Decision declaring an official’s absence unauthorised in the light
of the outcome of a medical examination – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Scope*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.)*

2.      *Officials – Sick leave – Proof of sickness – Medical officer’s examination – Finding that official is able to work – Effect*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 59 and 60)*

1.      The reasons given for a decision are sufficient if the measure against which the action is brought was adopted in circumstances
known to the official concerned which enable him to understand the scope of the measure concerning him. That is the case of
a decision declaring unauthorised the absence of an official who has not returned to work even though he was judged, following
a medical examination, to be able to work half-time following a period of sick leave, if that decision, while not containing
a detailed statement of reasons relating to the official’s ability to work, refers to an attached note from the Medical Service
setting out the history of his illness, and, in addition, if it falls within a context where the administration’s intention
was to protect the official’s interests by allowing him to return to work gradually.

(see paras 35-36, 38)

See: 791/79 *Demont* v *Commission* [1981] ECR 3105, para. 12; C‐116/88 and C‐149/88 *Hecq* v *Commission* [1990] ECR I‐599, para. 26; C‐294/95 P *Ojha* v *Commission* [1996] ECR I‐5863, para. 35; T‐98/96 *Costacurta* v *Commission* [1998] ECR-SC I‐A‐21 and II‐49, para. 86

2.      An official cannot avoid the obligation to return to work which results from a medical examination establishing that he is
able to work, by producing a medical certificate which refers to his ongoing medical treatment but does not state that he
has been unable to work, and therefore does not mention the dates on which that incapacity started and ended. Such a document
cannot, under any circumstances, constitute a certificate showing with sufficient clarity and beyond all argument the official’s
incapacity for work.

(see paras 61-63)

See: T‐135/95 *Z* v *Commission* [1996] ECR-SC I‐A‐519 and II‐1413, para. 34; T‐169/95 *Quijano* v *Parliament* [1997] ECR-SC I‐A‐91 and II‐273, para. 40
# CE2004084EN.01004201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/42

---

(2004/C 84 E/0046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2945/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Specific programme for research

Subject:

In the explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006), (1), it is said that in the course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent of the donors has been obtained.

1

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the Council confirm:

| — | who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested? |
| --- | --- |

—

who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

| — | how will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development? |
| --- | --- |

—

how will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

Reply

(8 March 2004)

(8 March 2004)

The Council attaches great importance to respecting fundamental ethical principles in the implementation of the specific research programme referred to by the Honourable Member. In this respect, Council Decision 2002/834/EC of 30 September 2002 (2) stipulates that, ‘inter alia’, ‘Where appropriate, participants in research projects must seek the approval of the relevant national or local ethics committees prior to the start of the RTD activities. An ethical review will be implemented systematically by the Commission for proposals dealing with ethically sensitive issues, in particular proposals involving the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells’.

2

Regarding the Commission proposal for amending the specific programme mentioned in the question, the Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the conclusions adopted following its meeting held on 3 December 2003, where the President, at the end of the discussion, concluded that no agreement could be reached either on the Commission proposal as amended in the light of the opinion given by the European Parliament in November or on the Presidency text put forward for the occasion.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 390 final.

1

(2)  OJ L 294, 29.10.2002.

2

---
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 52 weeks ended November 1, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay M.
Meilstrup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ JAY M.
MEILSTRUP


Jay M.
Meilstrup


Chief
Executive Officer


January
29, 2010
STATE of North Carolina v. Fernando HURTADO, Defendant.

No. COA15-211.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error in Part; Vacated and Remanded in Part.