alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC v. GRAY, et al.

No. 108PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 18, 2015.

Debbie W. Harden, Meredith J. McKee, Charlotte, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.

Jackson R. Price, Charlotte.

John R. Buric, Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, for Gray, Herbert A.

Fred W. DeVore, III, Charlotte, for Builder Support Services of the Carolinas, Inc., et al.

Derek P. Adler, Charlotte.

Erik M. Rosenwood, for Yarbrough-Williams & Houle, Inc.

Mark R. Kutny, Charlotte.

Lawrence J. Goldman, Charlotte, for Lucas-Forman, Inc.

Gregory W. Brown, Raleigh, for Carter Land Surveyors & Planners, Inc.

Kristi L. Gavalier, Raleigh.

Matthew D. Rhoad, Davis F. Roach, Raleigh, for Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., et al.

Joseph W. Eason, Raleigh, D. Martin Wart, for N.C. Electric Membership Corporation, et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 17th of June 2015 by Plaintiff-Appellant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of June 2015."

Plaintiff-Appellant shall have up to and including the 20th day of July 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 10.1




Exhibit 10.1







RESTRICTED STOCK OPTION

TERMINATION AGREEMENT




This Restricted Stock Option Termination Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made by and between First Franklin
Corporation (the “Company”) and John J. Kuntz (the “Executive”) as of this 12th day of October, 2010 (“Effective
Date”).



WHEREAS, the Company previously granted the Executive an award of 38,000 stock options (“Options”) pursuant to a
Restricted Stock Option Award Agreement dated as of April 16, 2010 (the “Option Agreement”); and



WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive each desire to enter into this Agreement to terminate and cancel the Option
Agreement;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:




	1.	 	Simultaneously with closing of the transactions contemplated in the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October
12, 2010 by and among the Company, Franklin Savings and Loan, Cheviot Financial Corp., Cheviot Savings Bank and
Cheviot Merger Subsidiary (the “Merger Agreement”), the Option Agreement shall be terminated and canceled with
respect to the 33,000 unvested Option Shares and the Executive shall relinquish any claim or right to any of the
Company’s common shares underlying the terminated and canceled Option Shares.







	2.	 	Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Option Agreement.







	3.	 	This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Ohio (excluding any conflicts of laws principles).







	4.	 	If Merger Agreement is terminated for any reason as provided in Section 7.01 of the Merger Agreement, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate and become null and void for all purposes.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized representatives,
this Amendment, effective as of the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 
	FIRST FRANKLIN CORPORATION

	 	JOHN J. KUNTZ
	 

	 	
	By: /s/Gretchen J. Schmidt             
            

	 	/s/John J. Kuntz             
            
	 

	 
	Name: Gretchen J. Schmidt             
            

	 	
	 

	 	
	Title: Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 469 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 469

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
special rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2007

  Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
special rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED CONSERVATION 
              CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Individuals.--Subparagraph (E) of section 170(b)(1) of 
        the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions of 
        qualified conservation contributions) is amended by striking 
        clause (vi).
            (2) Corporations.--Subparagraph (B) of section 170(b)(2) of 
        such Code (relating to qualified conservation contributions) is 
        amended by striking clause (iii).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2009 – Borax Europe v Commission**

**(Case T-121/05)**

Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Documents and sound recordings – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual – Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process

European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 3 and 4(3)) (see paras 33-35, 43,
63, 66-70, 73)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967(I), p. 234). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of 17 January 2005 of the Secretary-General of the Commission refusing access to certain documents and sound recordings in connection with the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
STATE of North Carolina, v. Peter Michael VALLEJO, Defendant.

No. COA15-388.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamar Ishmeal WRIGHT.

No. 159P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Kevin P. Bradley, for Wright, Jamar Ishmeal.

James M. Stanley, Jr., Special Deputy 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 12th of May 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."
STATE v. Carlton Washington TOMLINSON.

No. 319P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

<page vol="778" reporter="S.E.2d" no="83" /> The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of September 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

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



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), David DeWalt, Chief Executive Officer
of Documentum, Inc. (the Company), and Mark Garrett, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:

1.The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2002, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the
14th day of August, 2002.

| |  |     |  |                                                                                                          
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: |  | /s/ David DeWalt
        David DeWalt
        President and Chief Executive Officer                      
|
| |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark Garrett
        
        Mark Garrett
        Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1** **SECTION 906    CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the    “Company”) on    Form 10-K    for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief    Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as    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    result of operations of the Company.     /s/  Pamela Fredette    Pamela Fredette    Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President     May 15, 2006     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 written    statement 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.
# CE2004078EN.01037401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/374 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/374

---

(2004/C 78 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject:   EC-Israel trade agreement

Subject:

On 17 May 2001 the European Parliament said ‘whereas Israel's improper implementation of its trade-related agreements is causing the benefits of Community preferences to accrue illegally to goods produced in illegal settlements’ and called on ‘the Commission and the Member States to take decisive measures to correct any violation of rules of origin by Israel under the trade agreement with the EU and to inform Parliament, so as to avoid any indirect complicity in illegal settlements’ (European Parliament resolution on the situation in the Middle East (1)).

1

Is Israel continuing to establish the origin of its exports without making a distinction between those produced in Israel itself and those produced in its illegal settlements?

Does the Commission consider that Israel is currently violating the Protocol on Rules of Origin to the EC-Israel Association Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to oral questions H-0266/03, H-0268/03, H-0270/03, H-0272/03, H-0278/03, H-0283/03, H-0287/03 by Mr Lipietz, Mrs Banotti, Mr Cushnahan, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Pronk, Mr Dhaene and Mrs Sandbaek during question time at Parliament's May 2003 session (2).

2

---

(1)  OJ C 34 E, 7.2.2002, p. 356.

1

(2)  Written reply of 13.5.2003.

2

---
STATE v. Scott Matthew SPIRON.

No. 3P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Scott Matthew Spiron, Spruce Pine, for Spiron, Scott Matthew.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> *620"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
----

(2004/C 33 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2275/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Agriculture — drought and set-aside land

Some parts of France are currently suffering from serious drought, and grass for use as cattle fodder is becoming scarce. Would it be possible in such cases for derogations to be granted so that set-aside land might be used for the growing of animal fodder crops, with a view not only to coping with the current crisis but also to combating the droughts which are likely to occur in the future?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the drought became worse in several regions of the Community in June 2003 and, following a favourable opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals delivered on 3 July 2003, has decided to authorise the use of set-aside land for fodder in the regions concerned in Germany, France, Italy and Austria in the 2003/04 marketing year. This measure applies from 4 July 2003.

The use of set-aside land for animal feed must remain an exceptional measure to be adopted only where specific regional circumstances so require.

----
In the Matter of E.D., M.D.

No. COA15-838.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter James INGRAM.

No. COA15-338.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
NEUSOFT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, USA, INC., Plaintiff v. NEUISYS, LLC, Defendant Neuisys, LLC, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc., Tom Buse, and Keith Mildenburger, Counterclaim-Defendants Neuisys, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant.

No. 288P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Alan W. Duncan, Attorney at Law, for Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd.

Stephen M. Russell, Jr., Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd.

L. Cooper Harrell, Greensboro, Attorney at Law.

Daniel R. Taylor, Jr., Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, For Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

Susan H. Boyles, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

J. Dennis Bailey, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Buse, Tom, et al.

Joseph T. Carruthers, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Buse, Tom, et al.

Greer B. Taylor, Attorney at Law.

Philip J. Mohr, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Neuisys, LLC.

Brent F. Powell, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Neuisys, LLC.

Jon Berkelhammer, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Kelly Margolis Dagger, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys.

Phillip Absolom Harris, Jr., Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Neusoft Medical Systems, USA Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of August 2015 by Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant's (Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc.) 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 5th of November 2015."
Exhibit 99.11
 CONSENT OF PETER NAHAN
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 21, 2011, entitled Goldcorp Inc., Peñasquito
Polymetallic Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Peñasquito
Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information
relating to the Peñasquito Report and the Peñasquito Project, and the properties described
therein.
  Date: March 31, 2011/s/ Peter NahanName:
    Peter Nahan, AusIMM
31.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Ralph M. Amato, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of BoysToys.com, Inc.
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (ass defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period which this report is being prepared; and



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. 	The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|Dated: | August 13, 2004                                         
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------
|       |                                                         
|By:    | /s/ Ralp M. Amato
Ralph M. Amato
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>


                                  EXHIBIT 11

                             XECHEM INTERNATIONAL, INC.


                              EARNINGS [LOSS] PER SHARE



                                                                  Years ended
                                                                  December 31,
                                                              1 9 9 6      1 9 9 5
                                                              -------      -------

<S>                                                        <C>          <C> 

Average shares outstanding disregarding dilutive
  stock options and redeemable warrants                     7,321,966     6,206,237

Assumed exercise of dilutive stock options and
  redeemable warrants based on the treasury stock
  method using the year end market price                           --       705,660

Assumed conversion of Series C Preferred Stock             20,120,000            --
                                                           ----------   -----------

  Fully Diluted Shares Outstanding                         27,441,966     6,911,897
                                                           ==========   ===========

  Net [Loss] Available to Common Stockholders              $(3,174,205) $(3,141,908)
                                                           ===========  ===========

  Fully Diluted [Loss] Per Share                           $     (.12)  $      (.45)
                                                           ==========   ===========

This calculation is submitted in accordance with Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Release No. 9083 although
it is contrary to Paragraph 40 of APB No. 15 because it produces an antidilutive result.

</TABLE>