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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.4
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                          7,790
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,812
<INVENTORY>                                     2,217
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               41,144
<PP&E>                                         89,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                 26,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                108,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,974
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          390
<OTHER-SE>                                     52,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  108,272
<SALES>                                       129,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              129,470
<CGS>                                          91,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  91,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                1,031
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                13,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             9,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    9,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.40
        


</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 2, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11288

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-80073-CV-DTKH

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, 

a foreign corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

AMERICAN YACHTS LTD., 

a foreign corporation, 

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a foreign corporation, 

BOAT/US, INC., 

a foreign corporation, 

a.k.a. Boat America Corporation, 

d.b.a. Boatus, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 2, 2008)
2

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Auto-Owners Insurance appeals a final judgment granting attorneys’ fees

and costs in favor of American Yacht Ltd. and Continental Insurance Company in

the amount of $481,957.23. We find no merit to the three issues raised by AutoOwners on appeal.

First, the district court did not err in concluding that the Joint Proposal for

Settlement was not ambiguous simply because Auto-Owners was required to

accept the amount offered by both American and Continental. Moreover, we find

that the releases attached to the joint offer were correctly found to have been stated

with particularity and are enforceable.

Second, Auto-Owners contends that the Joint Proposal was ambiguous

because it referenced both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and Florida Statute,

Section 768.79. We agree with the district court that there was no ambiguity here. 

Rule 68 does not preempt Section 768.79 and as such, Section 768.79 is

controlling in this case. Furthermore, the Joint Proposal complies with Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. 

Finally, we find no error in the district court’s factual determination that the 

attorneys’ fees awarded to American and Continental were reasonable and non-
 Because this court has denied Auto-Owners’ petition for rehearing en banc as to its 1

claim under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, its argument that American and Continental

would not be entitled to attorneys’ fees if we reversed the district court’s granting of summary

judgment is moot. 

3

duplicative.1

AFFIRMED.
John Israel NESBIT, Plaintiff, v. Amy Lynn Padget NESBIT, Defendant.

No. COA16-56.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
In the Matter of L.D.W.

No. COA15-423.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 19, 2016. Mandate February 8, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Leavitt v. State

191P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 1, 2016

Mr. Owen D. Leavitt, Pro Se.

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of May 2016 by *440Petitioner to Reconsider Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of June 2016."
# C_2011145EN.01002202.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission

(Case T-385/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Participation in the infringement)

2011/C 145/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Aalberts Industries NV (Utrecht, Netherlands); Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle-Saint-Mesmin, France); and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented initially by R. Wesseling and M. van der Woude, and subsequently by R. Wesseling, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis, R. Sauer and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG participated in the infringement during the period from 25 June 2003 to 1 April 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) in so far as it finds that Aalberts Industries NV, Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS, and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG participated in the infringement during the period from 25 June 2003 to 1 April 2004;

| 2. | Annuls Article 2(a) and (b)(2) of Decision C(2006) 4180; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Article 2(a) and (b)(2) of Decision C(2006) 4180;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136072 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136072 

 COA: 281980 

Allegan CC: 04-013767-FC 

ALVIN JUNIOR GREER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

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
Exhibit
32.2





Certification





I,
Theodore Abajian, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. for the fiscal year period ended
January 25, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CKE Restaurants,
Inc.





/s/
      Theodore AbajianTheodore AbajianExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer





Date:
March 24,
2010





This
certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
# C_2008197EN.01002002.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 2008 — Mülhens v OHIM — Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)

(Case T-93/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 197/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen and S. Maaßen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, É. Cornu, E. de Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
STATE v. Rodney Nigee Pledger TAYLOR.

No. 317PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 7, 2015.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Taylor, Rodney Nigee Pledger.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of July 2015 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of July 2015."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 7th day of August 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 32-1

Certification by the Chief Executive
Officer

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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 26, 2004,
of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Andrew F. Puzder, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
    Section 780(d)); and
|
| | 2. The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                  

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed
and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite
his signature below.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ ANDREW F. PUZDER   
| | Andrew F. Puzder       
| | Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 7, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theperiodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended April 16, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the datehereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the UnitedStates Code, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: May  31, 2005 |   |   |                                              |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   |   |                                              |   |
|                |   | By:    | /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom                             |   |   |
|                |   |   | Dirk A. Sodestrom                                 |   |
|                |   |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                     |        |        |                                                   |        |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity

as Governor of Texas,

Appellant

,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00149

- CV

Appeal from the

C ounty Court at Law No. 7

o f El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021

- DCV

- 2805 )

BRIEFING ORDER

The full appellate record in this case is set to be filed by Tuesday, September 21, 2021. The Court

finds good cause to expedite briefing on this matter and hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

• Appellant ’ s Brief is due Tuesday, September 28, 2021.

• Appellee ’ s Brief is due Tuesday, October 5, 2021.

• Appellant ’ s Reply Brief, if any, is due October 12, 2021.

Additionally, because this appeal is being expedited, we invoke Tex.R.App.P. 2 and susp end the

requirement that the Clerk of the Court provide the parties with 21 days ’ notice of the submission date

for this accelerated appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 4 th day of Sep tember , 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
# C_2009233EN.01001402.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/14

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2009 — Athinaïki Techniki AE v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-94/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside - Withdrawal of the contested decision - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 233/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marrousi, Greece) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint related to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Casino Mont Parnès’ public contract.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

| 2. | The Commission of the European Communities shall bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission of the European Communities shall bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2




                            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 Annual Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas Y. Jimenez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirement 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/ Thomas Y. Jimenez
-------------------------
Thomas Y, Jimenez
Chief Financial Officer
March 23, 2005
1

Ed Schafer has been appointed to serve as the Secretary of the United States

Department of Agriculture, and is substituted as an appellee pursuant to Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1284

___________

James Widtfeldt; James Widtfeldt *

Trust, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ed Schafer,1

 in his capacity as Secretary *

of the United States Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Agriculture; United States Department *

of Agriculture; Monte Fletcher, in his *

official capacity as Holt County *

Executive Director of the United States *

Farm Service Agency, an Agency of *

the United States Department of *

Agriculture; Richard Kilmurry; Bonny *

Kilmurry; Hilger Brothers Partnerships; *

Gary A. Burival; Joyce A. Burival; *

Edwin Burival, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 29, 2008

Filed: September 4, 2008

___________
2

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s2

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) & (2), challenging an order of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which found him ineligible for federal

farm subsidies for the years 2000 and 2001 and required him to refund approximately

$29,000 in payments he received for those years. Upon de novo review, we agree

with the district court that the USDA’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, or otherwise inconsistent with the law. See Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n

v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellate standard of review and

applicable legal standard under APA). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 4, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10735

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00016-CR-1-WLS-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ERIC SWAFFORD, 

a.k.a. Meek, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 4, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Rick D. Collum, appointed counsel for Eric Swafford in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation and filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record confirms that there are no

issues of arguable merit on appeal. Therefore, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Swafford’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.