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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136032 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: 136032 

 COA: 281405 

Saginaw CC: 88-001205-FC 

WAYNE ANTONIO MOORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2008 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

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
# C_2010148EN.01002502.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Gütermann and Zwicky v Commission

(Joined Cases T-456/05 and T-457/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2010/C 148/44

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gütermann AG (Gutach-Breisgau, Germany) (Case T-456/05); and Zwicky & Co. AG (Wallisellen, Switzerland) (Case T-457/05) (represented by: J. Burrichter, B. Kasten and S. Orlikowski-Wolf, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Schneider and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Gütermann AG et Zwicky & Co. AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gütermann AG et Zwicky & Co. AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Closure of companies and mass redundancies

Schiesser-Palco recently laid off 500 workers and closed down its factory in Athens. Will the Commission say how much that company received in Community funding and at what periods of time? Did this particular company comply with the obligations laid down in the guidelines for financial aid, which stipulate that the recipients of aid must maintain their investment for at least five years? In addition, did the company maintain the existing jobs, as laid down in the new Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (1) of 12 December 2002 on aid for employment? Finally, were consultations between management and workers held in due time, as laid down in Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC (2)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The company Schiesser-Palco has not been financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of any Operational Programme in the period 2000-2006.

There are minimum requirements and provisions set out by Community legislation in order to provide appropriate protection to employees in the case of collective redundancies. As mentioned by the Honourable Member, under Article 2 of the Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies, Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that an employer, where he is contemplating collective redundancies, shall begin consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

Member States have also to ensure that employers notify the competent public authority in the Member State concerned in writing of any projected collective redundancies. This notification shall contain all relevant information including information about the consultation procedure provided for in Article 2 of the Directive.

The Commission has no specific information if the consultation procedure, which the Honourable Member referred to, took place in this particular case. Any alleged breach of the Member States' legislation implementing the provisions of Community legislation in a particular Member State is, therefore, in principle a matter to be addressed in the first instance to the competent authority of the Member State concerned.

----

(1)OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 3.

(2)OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50880

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PABLO JOSE NEVAREZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Pablo Jose Nevarez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-35-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Pablo Jose Nevarez-Martinez

(Nevarez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nevarez has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Rhonda Michelle FRADY.

No. COA15-950.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed in part; no error in part; harmless error in part; vacated in part and remanded for resentencing.
<PAGE>   1
Gene Logic Inc.
Years Ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
Exhibit 11.1



                Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         
<S>                                                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>
                                                                                        1998       1997       1996
                                                                                       -----------------------------
Basic and Diluted:

Weighted average common shares outstanding                                            15,681      2,138        572 

Net loss                                                                            $(44,873)   $(7,194)   $(2,865)

Accretion of mandatory redeemable value of convertible preferred stock                   -        1,286        494 
                                                                                    ---------  ---------   --------
Net loss attributable to common stockholders                                        $(44,873)   $(8,480)   $(3,359)
                                                                                    =========  =========  =========
                                                  
Net loss per common share                                                             $(2.86)    $(3.97)    $(5.87)
                                                                                    =========   ========  =========
</TABLE>
STEWART v. MOORE FAMILY CARE, et al.

No. 335P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Robert K. Stewart, Marion, for Stewart, Robert K.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of October 2015 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> *274"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
Jason Lee MUTTER v. Michael BALL, Superintendent of Avery Mitchell Correctional Institution.

No. 150P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 26, 2016.

Jason Lee Mutter, for Mutter, Jason Lee.

Mike Ball, Superintendant, for Ball, Michael.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for Ball, Michael.

Todd Williams, District Attorney.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina 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 25th of April 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-08-00523-CR 

Carlos SILVA, 

Appellant 

v. 

The STATE of Texas, 

Appellee 

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-9110B 

Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding 

PER CURIAM 

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

 Steven C. Hilbig, Justice 

 

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008 

DISMISSED 

Appellant Carlos Silva entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery on 

June 20, 2005 and was sentenced to ten years deferred adjudication. Approximately one year 

later, the trial court adjudicated appellant and sentenced him to fifteen years confinement in the 

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 
04-08-00523-CR 

On July 7, 2008, appellant filed a pro so notice of appeal which did not contain the trial 

court’s certification of his right to appeal. Moreover, on July 18, 2008, appellant filed a pro se 

motion for an out of time appeal. 

The trial court subsequently appointed appellate counsel who filed a written notice with 

this court that counsel reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed over two years late. In light of the record presented, we 

agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(a)(2) requires this court dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, we deny appellant’s request for an out of time appeal and this appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

- 2 -
---

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 Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Glaser, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





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





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





Dated:  April 29, 2011






/s/ Robert Glaser

Robert Glaser

Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

STEVEN JAMES LYNCH,

Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2359 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 29 DB 2017

Attorney Registration No. 37575

(Washington County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2019, upon consideration of the Verified 

Statement of Resignation, Steven James Lynch is disbarred on consent from the Bar of 

this Commonwealth. See Pa.R.D.E. 215. Respondent shall comply with the provisions 

of Pa.R.D.E. 217, and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 of 4 February 2014 concerning the classification of certain goods in the            Combined Nomenclature (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014                     

# of 4 February 2014

# concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/648 of 15 April 2019 repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 113/2014 concerning                                 the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.
FCCI INSURANCE GROUP, Plaintiff, v. Clifton HINESLEY, Jr. and The Hinesley-thompson Company, Inc., Defendants.

No. COA15-208.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008236EN.01000201.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-504/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/57/EEC - Implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites - Article 3(1) - Incorrect transposition)

(2008/C 236/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6) — Appointment of health and safety coordinators for a construction site where a number of undertakings are operating

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose in Italian law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose in Italian law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3671 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3671

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the eligibility for a 
medallion furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to signify the 
                veteran status of a deceased individual.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

Mr. Miller of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the eligibility for a 
medallion furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to signify the 
                veteran status of a deceased individual.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MEDALLIONS.

    Section 2306(d)(4) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following sentence: ``Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary may furnish a medallion or other device 
under this paragraph regardless of the date of the death of the 
individual for whom the medallion or other device is furnished.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Sulyaman Alisla WASALAAM.

No. 435P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Sulyaman Alislam Wasalaam, Lumberton, for Wasalaam, Sulyaman Alisla.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of January 2016 by Defendant for Preparation of a Stenographic Transcript:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
Exhibit 16.1

 

 

 

 

April 30, 2014

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We were previouslyprincipal accountants for Industrias Bachoco, S.A.B. de C.V. and subsidiaries (“Bachoco”) and, under the date ofApril 30, 2013, except as to note 2b) to the 2013 consolidated financial statements, which is as of April 14, 2014, wereported on the consolidated financial statements of Bachoco as of December 31, 2012 and January 1, 2012 and for the yearsended December 31, 2012 and 2011 (the “Consolidated Financial Statements”), and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. On August 27, 2013, we were dismissed as principal accountants. OnApril 14, 2014, we completed the audit of the reclassification to retrospectively apply the change in classificationdescribed in note 2b) to the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements as it relates to the Consolidated Financial Statementsand the auditor-client relationship ceased. We have read Bachoco's statements included under Item 16-F of its Form 20-F datedApril 30, 2014, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree withBachoco’s statement that Deloitte was not consulted regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to aspecific completed or contemplated transaction; or (ii) the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Bachoco’s2013 Consolidated Financial Statements; or (iii) whether there were any matters that were either the subject of disagreement(as described in Item 16F(a)(1)(iv) and the related instructions to such Item of Form 20-F) or a reportable event (asdescribed in Item 16F(a)(1)(v)) of Form 20-F.

 

 

 

Very truly yours,

 

KPMG Cardenas Dosal, S.C.

 

 

/s/ Demetrio Villa

 

 

Demetrio Villa

Partner
# C_2008051EN.01001201.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda

(Case C-62/06) (1)

1

(Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Article 3 - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings - Competent authority for classifying the act)

(2008/C 51/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas

Applicant:

Defendant: ZF Zefeser — Importação e Exportação de Produtos Alimentares Lda

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Ministério Público

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — ‘Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ — Concept and classification

Operative part of the judgment

Classification of an act as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties, falls within the competence of the customs authorities required to determine the exact amount of the import duties or export duties in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
NEUSOFT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, USA, INC., Plaintiff v. NEUISYS, LLC, Defendant

Neuisys, LLC, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc., Tom Buse, and Keith Mildenburger, Counterclaim-Defendants

Neuisys, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant.

No. 288P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

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

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

L. Cooper Harrell, Greensboro, Attorney at Law.

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

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

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

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

Greer B. Taylor, Attorney at Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of August 2015 by Counterclaim Defendants (Tom Buse and Keith Mildenburger) 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."