alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136610 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136610 

 COA: 284109 

Washtenaw CC: 06-001290-FH 

JASON LEVAR FRANKLIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2008 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

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
# C_2009019EN.01002601.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-263/06) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Measures ancillary to rural development - Time-limit of 24 months - Assessment of the expenditure to be excluded - Key controls - Principle of ne bis in idem - Extrapolation of the findings of default - Principle of proportionality)

ne bis in idem

(2009/C 19/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and G. Kanellopoulos, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents, and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the sector of measures ancillary to rural development

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive 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 Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                                  
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief
Executive Officer
|                                                       
|November 9, 2007
STATE of North Carolina, v. Adam Clayton PUGH.

No. COA15-1133.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# CE2004070EN.01022201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/222

---

(2004/C 70 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3118/03

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Relaxing restrictions on paraquat

Subject:

The international food and farming union, IUF, is concerned about the relaxing of current restrictions on the toxic herbicide paraquat. It is estimated that paraquat, for which there is no known antidote, accounts for a substantial number of the 40 000 global pesticide-related deaths every year. Relaxing restrictions on paraquat would encourage greater use of this toxic substance and would make it available on the market in the EU where it is currently banned. It would also undermine efforts to establish higher standards of health and safety in agriculture and to encourage agricultural production methods which are socially and environmentally sustainable.

What was the outcome of the meeting of the EU's Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at the beginning of October regarding the use of paraquat? Can the Commission provide official clarification regarding its views on the substance paraquat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2003)

(13 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3093/03 by Mr Ettl (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 266.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Nigee Pledger TAYLOR.

No. 317PA14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 6, 2015.

*ORDER*

This case comes before the Court by way of defendant's petition for discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31. We also allowed the State's conditional petition for discretionary review as to additional issues.

We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals in part and remand this case to the Court of Appeals to consider defendant's Fifth Amendment argument on the merits. As to all other issues in defendant's petition for discretionary review, and as to all issues in the State's conditional petition for discretionary review, we conclude that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 5th day of November, 2015.

s/Ervin, J.

For the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 770 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 770

To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to permit participating households 
    to use food stamp benefits to purchase nutritional supplements 
        providing vitamins or minerals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2007

 Mr. Harkin (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to permit participating households 
    to use food stamp benefits to purchase nutritional supplements 
        providing vitamins or minerals, 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 ``Food Stamp Vitamin and Mineral 
Improvement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the dietary patterns of Americans often do not comply 
        with the daily intakes of vitamins and minerals recommended by 
        the Food and Drug Administration;
            (2) children in low-income families and the elderly often 
        fail to achieve adequate nutrient intakes;
            (3) pregnant women have particularly high nutrient needs, 
        which they often fail to meet;
            (4)(A) scientific studies show that nutritional supplements 
        containing folic acid (a B vitamin) may prevent as many as 60 
        to 80 percent of neural tube birth defects;
            (B) the Public Health Service, in September 1992, 
        recommended that all women of childbearing age who are capable 
        of becoming pregnant consume at least 0.4 milligrams of folic 
        acid per day to reduce the risk of spina bifida and other 
        neural tube birth defects affecting the fetus; and
            (C) the Food and Drug Administration has approved a health 
        claim that folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube birth 
        defects;
            (5) infants who do not receive adequate intakes of iron may 
        suffer from impaired mental and behavioral development; and
            (6) scientific evidence indicates that increased intake of 
        specific nutrients over an extended period of time protects 
        against diseases and conditions such as osteoporosis, 
        cataracts, cancer, and heart disease.

SEC. 3. USE OF FOOD STAMPS TO PURCHASE VITAMINS AND MINERALS.

    Section 3(g)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2012(g)(1)) 
is amended by striking ``or food product'' and inserting ``, food 
product, or nutritional supplement providing a vitamin or mineral, or 
both,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1

                         APPLIED VOICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)



                                                        ----------------------
                                                            Quarter ended 
                                                              March 31,
                                                                1997
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        (in thousands, except
                                                           per share data)
                                                        ------------------------

Net  (loss)                                              $       (1,195)
                                                        ======================

Computation of common and common 
  equivalent shares outstanding:
               Common Stock                                       5,574
               Options                                              -
                                                        ----------------------
Common and common equivalent shares
     used in computing per share amounts                          5,574
                                                        ======================
Net (loss) per share                                     $        (0.21)
                                                        ======================







The fully diluted computation is not presented because the Company does not have
dilutive securities that are not common stock equivalents.
NO. 12-08-00339-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction for

burglary, a felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c), (d) (Vernon 2003). Included in his

notice of appeal is a request for an out of time appeal. 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the only court with jurisdiction to consider a request

for an out of time appeal. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). Moreover, on February 25, 1988, in our cause number 12-86-00248-CR, we issued an

opinion affirming the judgment Appellant attempts to appeal. That judgment because final after the

court of criminal appeals denied Appellant’s petition for review, and we issued our mandate on

April 13, 1988. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, article 11.07 provides that a challenge to a final

felony conviction, in a case in which the death penalty is not imposed, must be made by an

application for writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the court of criminal appeals. TEX.CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Eighth

Court of Appeals, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). Courts of appeals do not have

jurisdiction in such matters. See TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Accordingly,

this appeal and Appellant’s request for an out of time appeal are dismissed.
2

Opinion delivered September 3, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
STATE of North Carolina v. Mohammed Nadder JILANI.

No. 172P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Mohammed Nadder Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nadder.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of August 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         133,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,716
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,954
<PP&E>                                         118,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 563,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          948,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,210
<OTHER-SE>                                   (391,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   563,244
<SALES>                                        293,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,193
<CGS>                                           63,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,208,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,978,481)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,978,481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2758/03

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Entry into force of the motor vehicle block exemption regulation

The deadline for the changeover to the new motor vehicle block exemption regulation expires on 1 October 2003. Some vehicle manufacturers have terminated all dealer agreements and intend to conclude new contracts with their distributors. According to current information, the overwhelming majority of agreements have been drafted in such a way as to be diametrically opposed to the block exemption regulation. The objective was to liberalise the motor vehicle trade in order ‘to strengthen the position of dealers and repair shops and allow them to develop their business to the benefit of customers’ (Commission press release of 25 July 2003 — IP/03/1117). Statements issued by many dealer associations, however, show the opposite to be the case. Excessive regulations, standards and specifications are being used in an attempt to restrict competition and make a nonsense of liberalisation.

The Commission:

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2)OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.

(3)OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

----
STATE v. Sylvester Eugene HARDING.

No. 402P11-6.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Jonathan Shaw, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sylvester Eugene Harding, Maury, for Harding, Sylvester Eugene.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of September 2015 by Defendant to Amend Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
Form of Certificate of Contango ORE, Inc. Common Stock




 Exhibit 4.1 

 

 

  

																	
		  	 	CUSIP	  	  	 	XXXXXX XX X	  
		  	 	Holder ID	  	  	 	XXXXXXXXXX	  
	Contango ORE, Inc.	  	 	Insurance Value	  	  	 	1,000,000.00	  
		  	 	Number of Shares	  	  	 	123456	  
		  	 	DTC	  	  	 	12345678 123456789012345	  
	PO BOX 43004, Providence, RI 02940-3004	  				  				  				  			
		  	 	Certificate Numbers	  	  	 	Num/No.	  	  	 	Denom.	  	  	 	Total	  
	 MR A SAMPLE
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	1	  	  	 	1	  	  	 	1	  
	 DESIGNATION (IF ANY)
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	2	  	  	 	2	  	  	 	2	  
	 ADD 1
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	3	  	  	 	3	  	  	 	3	  
	 ADD 2
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	4	  	  	 	4	  	  	 	4	  
	 ADD 3
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	5	  	  	 	5	  	  	 	5	  
	 ADD 4
	  	 	1234567890/1234567890	  	  	 	6	  	  	 	6	  	  	 	6	  
	  

 



	  	 	Total Transaction	  	  				  				  	 	7
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1775]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Bay Partners LS Fund, L.P., License No. 09/79-0423; Notice 
Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment 
Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Bay Partners LS Fund, L.P., 10600 N. De 
Anza Boulevard, Suite 100, Cupertino, CA 95014, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Bay 
Partners LS Fund, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security 
financing to IPWireless, Inc. The financing is contemplated for 
operating expenses and for general corporate purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Bay Partners SBIC II, L.P., John 
Freidenrich, Neal Dempsey, Christopher Noble and Loring Knoblauch, all 
Associates of Bay Partners LS Fund, L.P., own more than ten percent of 
IPWireless, Inc.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for 
Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: January 12, 2005.
Jaime Guzman-Fournier,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 05-1775 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
----

(2004/C 33 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Trade in services

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission will estimate the potential for intra-Union trade in services and its impact on growth of output and employment. In preparation of its legislative response concerning the Internal Market for services, the Commission is currently drafting an impact assessment which will seek to explain the potential increase in cross-border service activities that could result from the elimination of existing Internal Market barriers.

However, given the fact that statistics in this area suffer from severe measurement problems and that there do not currently exist recognised macro-economic forecasting models for service activities, the Commission would find it difficult to provide a detailed quantitative forecast of potential intra-Union trade and investment in services and their impact on output and employment. The measurement and modelling complexity is further heightened by the fact that much trade in services is hidden in statistics on trade in goods. It should also be noted that much internationalisation of services is based on foreign direct investment so an exclusive focus on services trade could underestimate the true potential of a properly functioning Internal Market for services.

The Commission will make best efforts in its impact assessment, on the basis of existing statistics and information provided by stakeholders, to explain in more qualitative terms and on the basis of a micro-economic approach the potential impacts that could arise in the form of cost savings, growth in intra-Union services activities and growth in Union output and employment.

In his second question, the Honourable Member queries whether the Commission will take account of developments in services trade in more integrated areas such as Canada and the United States. The Commission will, subject to the statistical limitations explained above, compare the performance of Union service markets with those in North America in its impact assessment.

----
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO****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 Kitty Hawk, Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

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

 

|         |   |      |
|--------------|--------|-----------|
| May 14, 2003 |   | By:  | /S/ROBERT W.ZOLLER, JR. |
|         |   |      |  |
|         |   |      | **Robert W. Zoller, Jr.****Chief Executive Officer and President** |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
In the Matter of A.S.K., J.A.K.

No. COA15-1061.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.