alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Jacob Mark SPIVEY.

No. 143PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 25, 2015.

W. Michael Spivey, Rocky Mount, for Spivey, Jacob Mark.

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Staples S. Hughes, Durham, for Spivey, Jacob Mark.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Appellate Defender for Appointment of the Office of the Appellate Defender to Represent Jacob Mark Spivey as Appellee:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of August 2015."
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, Frank J. Mercardante hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Executive Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that 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 has set his hand hereto as of this 8th day of May 2007.



|                   |  |  |  |                                             
|------------------ |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  |  | PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES                    
|                   |  | 
|Dated: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Frank J. Mercardante                    
|                   |  |  |  | Frank J. Mercardante Chief Executive
Officer
# C_2009141EN.01000702.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 April 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-373/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Protection of the ozone layer - Import of methyl bromide into the Union - Refusal to allocate import quotas for 2005 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)

2009/C 141/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-216/05 Mebrom v Commission by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for annulment of Decision A(05)4338-D/6176 of the Commission of 11 April 2005 refusing to allocate to the appellant quotas for the import of methyl bromide into the European Union in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Incorrect application of Community law — Inadequate reasoning — Breach of Article 220 EC

Mebrom

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mebrom NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mebrom NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: August 13, 2004                 /s/ David C. Mahoney
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       David C. Mahoney
                                       Chief Executive Officer
ex4-2.htm


 



Exhibit 4.2








PROMISSORY NOTE


 










	
$100,000.00

	  	
January 20th, 2008













 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Global Clean Energy, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of Profit Consultants Inc (“Lender”), at its principal office, or at such other place as may be designated in writing by the holders of this Promissory Note (“Note”), the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND 00/100 DOLLARS ($100,000.00) (the “Principal Sum”). The unpaid Principal Sum shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months.


 


All payments to be made under this Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America which shall be legal tender for public and private debts at the time of payment.


 


In the event that an action is instituted to collect this Note, or any portion thereof, Maker promises to pay all costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and such other sums as the court may establish.


 


In the event of a default under this Note when due, then the holder of this Note, at its election, may declare the entire unpaid Principal Sum due and payable.


 


Every provision hereof is intended to be several. If any provision of this Note is determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions hereof, which shall remain binding and enforceable.


 


This Note is made in the State of Colorado and it is mutually agreed that Colorado law shall apply to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this Note.


 


All agreements between the holder of this Note and Maker are hereby expressly limited so that in no contingency or event whatsoever, whether by reason of deferment or acceleration of the maturity of this Note or otherwise, shall the rate of interest hereunder exceed the maximum permissible under applicable law with respect to the holder. If, from any circumstances whatsoever, the rate of interest resulting from the payment and/or accrual of any amount of interest hereunder, at any time that payment of interest is due and/or at any time that interest is accrued, shall exceed the limits prescribed by such applicable law, then the payment and/or accrual of such interest shall be reduced to that resulting from the maximum rate of interest permissible under such applicable law. This provision shall never be superseded or waived.


 


The makers, endorsers, and/or guarantors of this Note do hereby severally waive presentment, demand, protest and notices of protest, demand, dishonor and nonpayment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


 


 





GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC.


 


 


By: /s/ Kenneth Adessky                                   


Kenneth Adessky, 


C.F.O
<PAGE>   1


                                EXHIBIT 23.1

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Shareholders and Board of Directors
of Supertel Hospitality, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Nos.     
333-26501 and 33-80462 on Form S-8 of Supertel Hospitality, Inc. of our report,
dated January 30, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Supertel
Hospitality, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December
31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-K of Supertel Hospitality, Inc.

                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 23, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,750,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,373,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,656,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,638,000
<PP&E>                                       3,997,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,187,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,839,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    41,638,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (41,289,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,187,000
<SALES>                                     15,959,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,959,000
<CGS>                                        9,155,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,155,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (163,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             432,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,065,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,092,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,092,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of December 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
State of North Carolina v. James Edward Joyner, Defendant.

No. COA15-442-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

NO PLAIN ERROR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Respondent

v.

MIRIAM PRYOR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 356 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
American Natural Energy Corporation - Exhibit 10.8 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.8 

July 1, 2014 

Palo Verde Acquisitions, LLC
c/o Paul Ross 
7711 East
111th Street 
Suite 121 
Tulsa, OK 74133 



	Re: 	12% Convertible Debenture dated
      August 13, 2012 in the amount of $2,000,000 
	  	12% Convertible Debenture dated
      December 31, 2012 in the amount of $1,000,000 
	  	Warrant Cert. # W-08-2012-01 to
      purchase 20,000,000 shares common stock 
	  	Warrant Cert. # W-10-2012-01 to
      purchase 10,000,000 shares Common Stock 



Gentlemen, 

Pursuant to our discussions the referenced Debentures will be
amended to extend the maturity date to January 2, 2016 which is one (1) day
after the maturity of the Hillair Capital senior secured debentures. All
interest accrued through July 1, 2014 will be added to the outstanding principal
of each respective debenture. All future interest accruing will be treated in
accordance with the Subordination Agreement by and between Hillair Capital and
Palo Verde. The existing conversion price of $0.10 will continue pursuant to
existing terms of the debentures. 

The expiration date of the Warrants will be extended to January
2, 2018 with the exercise price reduced to $0.12 per share. All other provision
of the warrants will remain unchanged. 

The parties agree to amend the various instruments as required
to implement the above terms. Please sign below to acknowledge your agreement
with these changes. 

Sincerely, 
American Natural Energy Corporation 


/s/ Michael Paulk 

	Michael Paulk 	Acknowledged and Agreed to: 
	President 	  
	  	  
	  	     /s/ Paul A.
      Ross                                                                 
	  	By: Paul A. Ross 
	  	Title: Managing Member
----

(2004/C 33 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1804/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Withdrawal by the Commission of proceedings against Sinaga following an ECJ decision

The Commission, acting in breach of the principle of the separation of powers which applies in all democratic systems, took out legal proceedings against the Azores sugar refinery (Case C 2002-1098), over a matter then being examined by the European Court of Justice.

The Court, in point 4 of the conclusions of its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00, rejected the proposal of the sugar industry and the Commission for a ban on the marketing of unrefined sugar from the Azores, thus removing the basis for both the legal proceedings and the associated financial sanctions imposed on Portugal.

Is the Commission aware of the severe damage which has been caused to agriculture and industry in the Azores by its action taken independently of the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR ν Sinaga (not yet published) the Court of Justice, in answer to the referring court's fourth question, confirmed the principle of free shipment to mainland Portugal of white sugar produced from Azores sugarbeet.

The Commission welcomes the Court of Justice's confirmation of that principle, which is in line with the comments it presented and furthermore coincided with the view expressed by the Portuguese Government and Sinaga.

In the Commission's opinion, banning shipment of products which have been obtained in the Azores with support for local production would have been highly detrimental to that outermost region's agriculture.

The Commission has neither instituted infringement proceedings against, nor considered applying a financial correction to, the Portuguese Republic in respect of shipment of white sugar produced from Azores sugarbeet.

----
# C_2010011EN.01002102.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2009 — MTZ Polyfilms v Council of the European Union

(Case T-143/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India - Regulation terminating an interim review - Minimum import price undertakings - Determination of the export price - Application of a methodology different from that used in the initial investigation - Choice of legal basis - Article 2(8) and (9) and Article 11(3) and (9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

2010/C 11/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MTZ Polyfilms Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and K. Talabér-Ricz, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India, to the extent that it imposes an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 366/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India, to the extent that it imposes an anti-dumping duty on MTZ Polyfilms Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of MTZ Polyfilms and orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of MTZ Polyfilms and orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.1








The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such
      officer’s knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002:





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on August 9, 2005 (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, 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.







August
                9, 2005
            /s/
                Michael L. SawyerMichael
                L. SawyerChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Robert B. EastepRobert
                B. EastepChief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.





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 on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies,
      Inc.
      (the "Company") for the period ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, the
      undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





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





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





Dated  March
      13,
      2007




/s/
      Ronald L. Wilder


Ronald
      L.
      Wilder, President


(Chief
      Executive Officer)


(Chief
      Financial Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Dejerod CLAPP.

No. COA15-1079.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Prejudicial Error.
In the Matter of D.E.M., A Minor Juvenile.

No. COA15-719.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
NUMBER 13-07-133-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

CITY OF ABRAM, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

CITY OF MISSION, TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellants' brief in the above cause was due on May 16, 2008. On June 3,

2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the brief had not been timely filed and

that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this
2

letter, appellants reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly

injured by the appellants' failure to timely file a brief. To date, appellants have neither filed

their brief in this matter nor otherwise responded to the Court’s notices.

Appellants have failed to either reasonably explain their failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file brief, or file their brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 29th day of August, 2008.