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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                     1011435 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1179239 
<ALLOWANCES>                               (341000)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           2485009 
<PP&E>                                     6608706 
<DEPRECIATION>                            (3248544)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             7546819 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1226592 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      4111 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 5462394 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               7546819 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3989278 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3531782 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             461530 
<INCOME-TAX>                                 17100 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         444430 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                444430 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .07
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. William Earl ASKEW.

No. 133P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

John Green, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William Earl Askew, for Askew, William Earl.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 16th of April 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

> "Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of April 2015 by Defendant 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 20th of August 2015."
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Mervinous Baptiste, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered February 21, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Heidi C. Cesare, J.), rendered February 21, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument charging aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (<i>see</i> Vehicle and Traffic Law ยง 511[1][a]), was not jurisdictionally defective. Allegations that "the key was in the ignition, the engine was running and the defendant was behind the wheel" satisfied the operation element of the offense (<i>see People v Alamo</i>, 34 NY2d 453, 458-459 [1974]; <i>People v Almanzar</i>, 113 AD3d 527 [2014], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1059 [2014]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 10, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
EXHIBIT 31: Rule 13a-14(a) Certification      I, Fang Jinzhong, certify that:  1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of China Huaren Organic Products, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:  a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):    a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.   Date: August 17, 2007 /s/ Fang Jinzhong_________________ Fang Jinzhong, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  *       *       *       *       *
# C_2008285EN.01000502.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-316/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water)

(2008/C 285/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to ensure that the waste water from a number of agglomerations is made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before entering collecting systems (agglomerations of Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2009220EN.01001503.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/15

---

Order of the Court of 19 May 2009 — AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc.

(Case C-565/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services - Partial refusal of registration - Opposition proceedings - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 220/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (represented by: S. Schäffler, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), American Medical Systems, Inc. (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS v OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘AMS Advanced Medical Services’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10 and 42 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division and granting in part the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘AMS’ — Opposition proceedings — Admissibility of a request to prove the genuine use of the earlier mark made by the applicant for the first time before the Board of Appeal

AMS

OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH;

| 2. | Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 08.03.2008.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 

STATE OF OREGON

ROSS DAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) SC S50866

)

HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, )

State of Oregon, )

) ORDER CERTIFYING

Respondent. ) BALLOT TITLE

Upon consideration by the court.

Petitioner’s request for oral argument is denied.

Petitioner’s arguments that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title for Initiative

Petition 81 (2004) does not comply substantially with ORS 250.035 are not well taken.

The court certifies to the Secretary of State the Attorney General’s certified ballot

title for the proposed measure.

Dated this 16th day of December 2003.

 

WALLACE P. CARSON, JR.

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF DARA BIOSCIENCES, INC.



|                                       |  |                                                     
|-------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | Jurisdiction of Organization/ State of Incorporation
|DARA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.             |  | Delaware                                            
|                                       | 
|DARA Therapeutics, Inc.                |  | North Carolina                                      
|                                       | 
|MIKKO Pharmaceuticals, Inc.            |  | North Carolina                                      
|                                       | 
|Point Therapeutics Massachusetts, Inc. |  | Massachusetts                                       
|                                       | 
|Signum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.           |  | North Carolina
June 12, 2001


EXHIBIT 10.2



December 1, 2010



Lynn M. Utter

East Greenville, PA



Dear Lynn:

It is my pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2011 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program. 

In these challenging times our objectives are simple and something that each of us can help contribute to:

Leverage our investments in sales, marketing and design initiatives as well as enhanced operational capabilities to drive top line growth and improved levels of profitability while continuing to make the right investments in products, service and technology to position Knoll for long term success as demand recovers. 

Our success in 2011 and beyond will be a direct result of your ability to help us accomplish these long term goals while meeting our short term 2011 operating profit plan. 

If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2011 operating profit plan you can qualify for a total target incentive payment of $500,000.

This award is subject to my approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll's performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.

I have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2011 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2012. 

Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.

Sincerely,

/s/ Andrew B. Cogan

Andrew B. Cogan

CEO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7506

PAUL DOUGLAS TRAYNHAM, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERRENCE TYLER; LUTHER GLOVER, Defendants - Appellants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-134-5-BR) Submitted: January 7, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Mary S. Mercer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Letitia C. Echols, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants, North Carolina correctional officers, appeals the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Traynham v. Tyler , No. CA-00-134-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of Trans Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
K. Abcouwer,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/   JAMES K. ABCOUWER
-----------------------------
James K. Abcouwer
Chief Executive Officer
March 26, 2007

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WAYNE A. VANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (6:08-cr-00001-nkm-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Steven

R. Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne A. Vance appeals from the district court’s order

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four

months imprisonment after finding by a preponderance of the

evidence that Vance violated the terms of his supervised release by

committing domestic assault on his wife. Vance challenges the

revocation, contending that he was denied the right to confront the

witness against him in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

when, after his wife invoked the marital privilege, the court

admitted hearsay statements made by Vance’s wife concerning the

assault. We affirm.

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the

Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause

does not permit the introduction of out-of-court testimonial

evidence unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has

had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 68.

Vance asserts that, under this ruling, he was entitled to confront

the witness against him at the revocation hearing. The Crawford

holding does not apply to supervised release revocations because

they are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment.

See United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688, 691-92 (7th Cir. 2006);

United States v. Rondeau, 430 F.3d 44, 47-48 (1st Cir. 2005).

The district court’s decision to admit hearsay evidence

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Mohr,
3

318 F.3d 613, 618 (4th Cir. 2003). Hearsay evidence must be

“demonstrably reliable” to be admissible. United States v.

McCallum, 677 F.2d 1024, 1026 (4th Cir. 1982). We have reviewed

the parties’ briefs and the materials submitted in the joint

appendix, particularly the transcript of the hearing. We conclude

that the hearsay evidence was sufficiently reliable and therefore

the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED