alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,100
<SECURITIES>                                    13,963
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (452)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,497
<PP&E>                                          11,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,719)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,796
<SALES>                                         12,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,619
<CGS>                                            2,609
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,609
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    302
<INCOME-TAX>                                       112
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of: C.R.B., D.G.B., and C.M.B.

No. 105P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Michael E. Casterline, Attorney at Law, Asheville, For Burton, Tonya Lynne.

Larry Leake, Attorney at Law, Asheville, For Madison County DSS.

Jason R. Benton, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For GAL.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of March 2016 by Respondent (Mother) 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 9th of June 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136306 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136306 

 COA: 274009 

Genesee CC: 05-082755-CZ 

FISHER HOTEL, a/k/a FISHER HOTEL

ANNEX, a/k/a 4520 & 4626 BRYANT

STREET, FLINT, EXECUTIVE PROPERTY 

DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., and MKD

INVESTMENT, L.L.C.,

Defendants/Counter-PlaintiffsAppellees, 

and 

ALL RESIDENTS,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for 

the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, and we REMAND this case 

to the Genesee Circuit Court for entry of an order granting the plaintiff’s motion for 

summary disposition. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

l0903 

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 10, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004078EN.01012901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/129 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/129

---

(2004/C 78 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   Bioptic driving

Subject:

Will the Commission state in which Member States bioptic driving is currently allowed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

(11 September 2003)

As the Commission indicated to the Honourable Member in its reply to his Written Question E-1231/03 (1), the Commission is not aware of any Member State allowing to drive with the use of bioptic lenses. Moreover, no experiments have been conducted at any larger scale in Europe. Therefore, it is not expected that bioptic lenses will be allowed to be used in the near future, as it should first be thoroughly investigated and discussed.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

1

---
AMENDMENT NO. 1 (THIS "AMENDMENT") TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT"),
                 ORIGINALLY MADE AS OF AUGUST 14, 1998, BETWEEN
            EURO BROKERS INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND WALTER E. DULSKI

      The undersigned parties, pursuant to Section 15 of the Agreement, hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1.    In Section 1 of the Agreement, the Termination Date is hereby changed from
      August 31, 2001 to August 31, 2002.

2.    The following two sentences are hereby inserted into Section 2.1 of the
      Agreement immediately after the existing first sentence thereof:

           "Dulski shall be primarily charged with identifying new business
           opportunities for the Company. The Company shall not require Dulski
           to work out of any office locations other than its New York City
           office and its Stamford, Connecticut office.

      As amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of this
11th day of August, 2000.

                               EURO BROKERS INVESTMENT CORPORATION


                               By: /s/ KEITH REIHL
                                   ------------------------------------
                                       Keith Reihl

Chief Operating Officer
Agreed:

/s/ WALTER E. DULSKI
-------------------------------
Walter E. Dulski
exv10w32






Exhibit 10.32




Extension Agreement



This Agreement is entered into by the following parties on November 1, 2010 in Beijing:



KongZhong: Beijing Kongzhong Xinshi Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“KongZhong”)



Registered Address: 32F, Tengda Building, No.168 Xizhimenwaidajie Haidian District, Beijing



Cooperative Party: Hangzhou Sky Network Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Sky”)



Registered Address: Room 703, Block C, Zhejiang University Science Park, No.525 Xixi Road,
Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province




     Whereas,



     (1) KongZhong and Hangzhou Fanyi Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Fanyi”) entered into the
Cooperation Agreement on November 16, 2009, effective until November 16, 2010;



     (2) an amendment was entered into on June 1, 2010 by and among Kongzhong, Hangzhou Fanyi and
Hanzhou Sky, which changed one of the parties of the Cooperation Agreement from Hangzhou Fanyi to
Hangzhou Sky.


After negotiation between KongZhong and Hangzhou Sky, both parties agreed to enter into this
Extension Agreement as follows:




     1. To extend the term of the Cooperation Agreement to November 16, 2011.



     2. Other than the extension of the terms, other provisions of the Original Agreements shall
remain unchanged.



     3. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and shall be made with two
counterparts, with each party holding one copy. Each copy shall have the same legal force.


(No text below)



KongZhong: Beijing Kongzhong Xinshi Information Technology Co., Ltd.




 









 







Authorized Representative:



Seal: [Affixed with the seal of Beijing Kongzhong Xinshi Information Technology Co., Ltd.]



Cooperative Party: Hangzhou Sky Network Technologies Co., Ltd.



Authorized Representative:



Seal: [Affixed with the seal of Hangzhou Sky Network Technologies Co., Ltd.]
STATE of North Carolina v. Jessica Rasheeda JORDAN.

No. 299P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jordan, Jessica.

Alesia Mikhaulauna Balshakova, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 24th of August 2015 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:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of August 2015 by State of NC 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."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN HOLDINGS
CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN HOLDINGS CORP. ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q DATED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001062707
<NAME> LIN HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,575
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,851
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,766
<PP&E>                                         153,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,767,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,446
<BONDS>                                        521,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     517,067
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,767,180
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,981)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54926-54942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA 225-02-1000]


Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the 
National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological 
Disorders and Stroke

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (FDA/
CBER), and the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NIH/NINDS). The purpose of this MOU 
is to provide a framework for coordination and collaborative efforts 
between these two entities, which are both components of the Department 
of Health and Human Services. This MOU also provides the principles and 
procedures by which information sharing between FDA/CBER and NIH/NINDS 
units shall take place.

DATES: The agreement became effective February 12, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For FDA/CBER: Kimberly Benton, Center 
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 
1401 Rockville Pike, WOC1/rm. 209N, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-5102.
    For NIH/NINDS: Robert Finkelstein, Extramural Research, 
Neuroscience Center, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive 
Blvd., rm. 2143, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: September 8, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 54927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.003


[[Page 54928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.004


[[Page 54929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.005


[[Page 54930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.006


[[Page 54931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.007


[[Page 54932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.008


[[Page 54933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.009


[[Page 54934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.010


[[Page 54935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.011


[[Page 54936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.012


[[Page 54937]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.013


[[Page 54938]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.014


[[Page 54939]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.015


[[Page 54940]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.016


[[Page 54941]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.017


[[Page 54942]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19SE05.018

[FR Doc. 05-18514 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
Exhibit 99.15
 CONSENT OF D. KAPPES
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ Daniel W. KappesName:
    Daniel W. Kappes, P. Eng.Title:
    President - Kappes, Cassiday & Associates
On petition for review filed December 10, 1997,*

petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to circuit court with instructions October 27, 1999

#### AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., an Indiana corporation, *Respondent on Review, v.*CHUCK SMITH PAINTING, INC., an Oregon corporation, *Petitioner on Review.*

(CC 955085E2; CA A93943; SC S44817)

988 P2d 378

Robert S. Hamilton, of deSchweinitz & Hamilton, Medford, filed the petition for petitioner on review.

No appearance *contra.*

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, and Kulongoski, Justices.**

*

 Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court, 151 Or App 200, 948 P2d 1260 (1997).

**

 Leeson and Riggs, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the action unless plaintiff makes all persons who have any claim or interest that would be affected by the requested declaration parties to the action within a time to be set by the circuit court.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 – MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (manufacturing score card)**

**(Case T-459/05)**

Community trade mark – Community trade mark application in respect of manufacturing score card word mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of serving to designate the characteristics of a product (Council
Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25-26)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 October 2005 (Case R 1059/2004-2) concerning an application for registration of the manufacturing score card word mark as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark manufacturing score card for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 – Application No 3334596 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor to pay the costs. |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6754

STANFORD CAIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge; James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge. (2:08-cv00186-RGD-JEB)

Submitted: July 16, 2008 Decided: September 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanford Cain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanford Cain seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

orders denying his motion for a stay and motion for sanctions, as

well as the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949).

The magistrate judge’s orders denying Cain’s motions for a stay and

for sanctions are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory

or collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss Cain’s appeal from

those orders for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition, this court may only exercise jurisdiction

over the judgments or issues that are specifically referred to or

impliedly intended for appeal, as designated in the notice of

appeal. Foster v. Tandy Corp., 828 F.2d 1052, 1059 (4th Cir.

1987); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 3(a)(1). Cain’s only notice of

appeal — filed before the entry of the district court’s order

denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis — specifically

states that he is appealing from the magistrate judge’s April 25,

2008 order denying his motion for a stay. Accordingly , we dismiss

the appeal from the May 14, 2008 order denying leave to proceed in

forma pauperis for lack of jurisdiction as well. We note that this
- 3 -

rationale also independently supports dismissal of the appeal from

the order denying sanctions.

Finally, we deny Cain’s motion filed in this court to

proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

DISMISSED
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – United Kingdom v Commission**

**(Case T-278/06)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Butter – Check of the quantity of product obtained – On-the-spot checks – Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2571/97

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of
the Community rules (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 21-23, 91, 100)*

2.                     *Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products (Commission Regulation No 2571/97, Art. 23(2))
(see paras 48-55, 58, 68)*

3.                     *Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Financing granted for national projects (Commission Regulation No 2571/97,
Art. 23(2)) (see para. 71)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment in part 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 expenses incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the sector of concentrated butter in the food industry. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00258-CR

VICTOR LAWRENCE BAXTER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1694289R)

November 30, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
State of North Carolina v. Anthony Dove

No. 131P01-12

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Anthony Dove, Pro se.

Ms. Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, For State of NC.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Lenoir County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of December 2015 by Defendant to Expedite Petition for Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."