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

                                       OF

                              NACO COMPOSITES, INC.

                                  WITH AND INTO

                              NACO INDUSTRIES, INC.


         Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Section   16-10a-1104   and  Section
16-10a-1105 of the Utah Revised Business  Corporation Act (the "Utah Act"), NACO
Industries, Inc., a Utah corporation ("Industries") and NACO Composites, Inc., a
Utah  corporation  ("Composites"),  hereby  execute  the  following  Articles of
Merger:

         1.  Attached  hereto  as  Exhibit  A, and  incorporated  herein by this
reference,  is the  Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 20, 1999 (the "Plan
of  Merger"),  which  sets  forth  the  terms of the  merger  of  Composites,  a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Industries, with and into Industries (the "Merger").

         2.  Approval of the Plan of Merger by the  shareholders  of  Composites
was not required  because  immediately  prior to the filing of these Articles of
Merger,  Industries  owned all of the  outstanding  shares of each  class of the
capital stock of its subsidiary, Composites.

         3.  Pursuant to Section 16-10a-1104(3) of the Utah Act, the approval of
the Plan of Merger by the shareholders of Industries was not required.

         4.  The merger of  Composites  with and into  Industries  shall  become
effective  immediately  upon the filing of these  Articles of Merger and Plan of
Merger  with the Utah  Department  of  Commerce,  Division of  Corporations  and
Commercial Code (the "Effective Time").

         5.  The Effective  Time complies  with the  requirements  of Subsection
16-10a-1104(5) of the Utah Act.


ARTICLES OF MERGER

<PAGE>

         EXECUTED as of the 20th day of April, 1999.


NACO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
a Utah corporation



By /s/ Verne E. Bray
-------------------------------------------------
       Verne E. Bray, President



NACO COMPOSITES, INC.,
a Utah corporation



By /s/ Jeffrey J. Kirby
-------------------------------------------------
       Jeffrey J. Kirby, President



ARTICLES OF MERGER
                                       2

<PAGE>



                                    Exhibit A

                                 Plan of Merger

               [see Agreement and Plan of Merger attached hereto]



ARTICLES OF MERGER
                                       3
# CE2004078EN.01035001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/350

---

(2004/C 78 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3630/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Limit to the number of cigarettes one may take out of Spain

Subject:

My constituent and his partner were on holiday last May in Spain. At the end, they left from Malaga airport, where the local Customs said they could not take more than four cartons of cigarettes out of Spain. A friend in Spain was obliged to come to the airport to collect their remaining 32 cartons of cigarettes. They were obliged to sign a form in Spanish which they did not understand in order to be able to catch their plane at the last moment.

Now they have received in the mail a document in Spanish which mentions a figure of EUR 601 and which they suspect might be a fine.

Is it legal, under EU law and under the principle of free movement of people and goods, for Malaga Customs to impose a limit on how many local cigarettes a visitor may take out of Spain?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

(30 January 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has received complaints relating to seizure of tobacco products by Spanish authorities from outbound travellers. The Commission is investigating these complaints to ensure that Spanish law and practice are in line with Community single market law and, in particular, with Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

1

---
STATE v. James David NANNEY.

No. 357P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Harriet F. Worley, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James David Nanney, pro, Maury, for Nanney, James David.

Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*570The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of October 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
IN RE K.W.B.

No. COA08-1294.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Haywood (07JT54).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of i3 Mobile, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, J. William Grimes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      
|------
|By:   
|Name: 
|Title:
|      

April 8, 2003
# CE2004070EN.01019401.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/194

---

(2004/C 70 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3153/03

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   EU Info-Points

Subject:

At the end of September 2003, the Commission informed the EU information centres that from January 2004, under the new Financial Regulation, overheads will no longer be subsidised. This endangers the very existence of the Info-Points and information carrefours that have until now undeniably served citizens, the European Parliament and not least the European Commission well. These Info-Points are essential in building trust between the people of Europe and the European Union institutions.

| 1. | Why did this communication come so late and unexpectedly that those in charge of the Info-Points and carrefours were unable to make the necessary preparations for the new situation when planning their budget for 2004? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did this communication come so late and unexpectedly that those in charge of the Info-Points and carrefours were unable to make the necessary preparations for the new situation when planning their budget for 2004?

| 2. | Why was no arrangement made to guarantee the survival of these valuable Info-Points, even though the Financial Regulation the Commission is referring to has been in existence for over a year (since June 2002)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why was no arrangement made to guarantee the survival of these valuable Info-Points, even though the Financial Regulation the Commission is referring to has been in existence for over a year (since June 2002)?

| 3. | Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional measures to ensure the uninterrupted service of Info-Points during 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the Commission prepared to introduce transitional measures to ensure the uninterrupted service of Info-Points during 2004?

| 4. | What steps does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the lasting survival of Info-Points and carrefours? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the lasting survival of Info-Points and carrefours?

---
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4029

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Eddie W. Smith, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: August 7, 2008

Filed: August 14, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Smith pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing ammunition after having

been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). The

district court1

 found that his five prior drug convictions – which included sales of

controlled substances to an undercover officer on three different dates within a fortyday time period – totaled at least three serious drug offenses under the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA), and the court imposed a 180-month prison sentence on

October 6, 2006. Smith appeals, arguing the government did not prove that his prior
-2-

narcotics convictions were district criminal episodes rather than one prolonged

transaction constituting a single criminal episode.

We agree with the district court that Smith’s prior drug convictions amount to

at least three qualifying convictions for purposes of the ACCA. See United States v.

Mason, 440 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review; criminal episodes

underlying convictions trigger application of ACCA, not date of convictions or

number of trials or pleas); United States v. Speakman, 330 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th

Cir. 2003) (3 drug sales to same undercover officer on 3 separate dates within 1

month, although consolidated into single sentence, were properly treated as 3

convictions for purposes of ACCA); United States v. Cardenas, 217 F.3d 491, 491-92

(7th Cir. 2000) (2 drug sales to same individuals within 45 minutes constituted

separate and distinct episodes under § 924(e)(1); defendant had time to change his

mind, to cease and desist, and to refuse to sell to informants during time lapse). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF
                       TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and CFO 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 March 31, 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:  May 9, 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 27, 2018

t0723

Order 

Clerk

July 27, 2018

156657 (58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156657

COA: 332852

Kalamazoo CC: 2015-000818-FH

RICHARD DONALD MARCOTTE, III,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 1, 2018 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                         203,195
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (28,329)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               604,565
<PP&E>                                         236,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (40,324)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,409,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,254,819
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       187,534
<OTHER-SE>                                     155,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,409,878
<SALES>                                        212,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               212,043
<CGS>                                          131,215
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (920,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (920,650)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (920,735)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)


</TABLE>
IN RE B.R.M.

No. COA08-1103.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Harnett (08J23, 08J24).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q DATED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000931058
<NAME> LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          29,375
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,141
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,079
<PP&E>                                         127,458
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,790,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,191
<BONDS>                                        469,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     740,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,790,834
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,792
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   395
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,360)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,836)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01043301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/433 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/433

---

(2004/C 78 E/0454)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/03

by Domenico Mennitti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 September 2003)

Subject:   Development of Pan-European corridors

Subject:

The process of European integration is now reaching its final stage with the accession of ten new countries to the European Union.

There is therefore an urgent need to develop identified infrastructure to foster economic relations within an area that has expanded enormously in size.

Of particular importance among the types of infrastructure envisaged are ‘Pan-European corridors’, which are considered ideal tools for promoting economic exchange and especially trade.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not feel that the priority criteria should be broadened and special attention awarded to Pan-European corridor No 8 as part of the plans to boost the countries bordering the Mediterranean, which should be flanked with the development of adequate infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

(15 October 2003)

The enlargement of the Union will bring a major change into the corridor concept; two-thirds of the existing Corridors will be within the territory of the Union and only one-third of the corridors will be outside the Union territory. Corridors or axes could be seen both inside and outside of the enlarged Union — inside as a framework to channel the new priority transport routes which are emerging as a result of accelerated economic integration and which are one of the subjects of the ongoing revision of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) guidelines, and — outside to reflect international trade developments.

However, a fundamental re-assessment of future corridor development and management is needed. The number of corridors should probably remain at a level which is manageable and affordable in terms of financing. These redefined corridors or axes would need close and systematic supervision in order to be realised in a reasonable amount of time. A number of useful management techniques have been developed for the corridors. These structures (Memo of Understandings, Steering committees, etc.) are expected to make progress with the identification of inventories, bottlenecks and priority projects.

In the end, the implementation of the Corridor VIII, which has been signed only recently, depends on the countries concerned in the first place. As the Honourable Member may know, the whole alignment of the Corridor VIII on rail is also mentioned in the Report of the TEN-T High Level Group as an important project for territorial cohesion.

---
----

(2004/C 78 E/0805)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2801/03

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Special tolls in France and Germany for the transport of goods by road

The announcement that the French and German authorities will shortly impose special tolls for lorries travelling through those countries on the motorways is likely to cause justified alarm in the Murcia region (Spain), particularly in the farming industry, since it might have adverse effects on the transport of fruit and vegetables from Murcia to various EU countries.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council is aware of the fact that German authorities intend to impose in the near future tolls on heavy goods vehicles, levied per kilometre. The Council does not dispose of any information which might indicate that France, apart from the tolls it already applies on its highways, intends to impose additional tolls on all heavy goods vehicles travelling through France.

The Council recalls that any levying of tolls for heavy goods vehicles must respect the provisions of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (1).

Provided that a Member State respects these provisions, it is free to impose tolls on heavy goods vehicles; it may be recalled that in some ‘transit countries’, such tolls — also levied on transport operators from other countries which make use of their infrastructure — constitute a contribution to the financing of the transeuropean networks concerned.

Furthermore, the Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is currently examining the Commission's proposal for a Directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructure (2), which aims to ensure that a harmonised methodology will be used for the calculation of tolls and to render toll systems more transparent; in the context of this examination, the particular concerns of peripheral countries and regions will be duly taken into account.

----

(1)OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42.

(2)  COM(2003)448 final (2003/0175 (COD)).

----