alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Don McRae SMITH, Jr.

No. 332PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Geoffrey Hosford, Wilmington, for Don McRae Smith, Jr.

Leonard Green, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of July 2008 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# C_2012355EN.01001702.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission

(Case T-357/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements - Rights of the defence - Fine - Aggravating circumstances - Role of instigator and leader - Absence of cooperation - Commission's powers of investigation - Right to the assistance of a lawyer - Misuse of powers - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Duration of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 355/33

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (Utrecht (Netherlands)) (represented: initially by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by de L. Gyselen, F. Tuytschaever and F. Wijckmans, and subsequently by L. de Gyselen, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
exv10w6wc






Exhibit 10.6(c)




Executive Officers of

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company

who are parties to form of

Employee Confidentiality, Noncompetition,

Nonsolicitation Agreement for employees

participating in The Scotts Company LLC

Amended and Restated Executive Incentive Plan

(as of September 30, 2010)







	 	 	 
	 	 	Date of Employee
	Name and Principal Position	 	Noncompetition, Nonsolicitation
	with The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company	 	Agreement
	 
	 	 
	Barry W. Sanders, Executive Vice President, Global Consumer1

	 	April 22, 2005
	 
	 	 
	Vincent C. Brockman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer

	 	May 11, 2006
	 
	 	 
	David C. Evans, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

	 	May 20, 2006
	 
	 	 
	Denise S. Stump, Executive Vice President, Global Human Resources

	 	August 8, 2006
	 
	 	 
	Mark R. Baker, President and Chief Operating Officer2

	 	September 29, 2008
	 
	 	 
	Michael P. Kelty, Executive Vice President3

	 	November 13, 2008








 




			
	1	 	Mr. Sanders was appointed President as of October 28, 2010
	 
	2	 	Mr. Baker resigned as of October 28, 2010
	 
	3	 	As of October 1, 2010, Dr. Kelty no longer serves as Executive Vice
President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             748
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                       551
<INVENTORY>                                     12,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,557
<PP&E>                                          10,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,110
<BONDS>                                          1,064
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,644
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,279
<SALES>                                         39,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,235
<CGS>                                           22,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,944
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   411
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,445)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,284)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,284)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                     2237287 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1859021 
<ALLOWANCES>                               (252483)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3161415 
<PP&E>                                     8179584 
<DEPRECIATION>                            (3278872)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            13799739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       398331 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      7239 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                     20 
<OTHER-SE>                                11009393 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              13799739 
<SALES>                                    9911245 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           9911245
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              7669965 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (83934)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2379371 
<INCOME-TAX>                                148984 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        2379371
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               2230387 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .31 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .29 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008301EN.01006401.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/64

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-395/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/119)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. Regina Natasha ROSS, Defendant.

No. COA15-73.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
SUPERIOR COU RT OF THE STATE OF D ELAWAR

E Mary M. Johns ton Judge New Castl e County Courthous e 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, DE 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0668 Decem ber 4, 2014 Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Cooch & Taylor, P.A. The Bra ndywine Building 1000 West

Street, 10 th Floor Wilm ington, DE

19801 Michael P. Kelly, Esquire McCarte r & Englis h Renaissance Centre 405 North King Street, 8 th Floor Wilm ington, DE

19801

Re: PICA v. Hewlett-Packard Company C. A. No. N 12C-06-196 MMJ CCLD
Dear C ounsel: I am considering Hewle tt-Packa rd’s Mot ion for Ex pedited L imite d Relief from Judgme ntor Orde r Pursuan t to Rule 60(

b) and He wlett -Pack ard’s Motion, P ursuant to Rule 62, t o Stay

Executio n of Judgm ent Pending Resolution o f Motions a

nd PostTrial Appeal (He wlett-Packar d’s Judgment Mo tions”). The Order entered N ovember 13, 3014 c lear ly contemplated that the Court would retain j urisdiction , pending resolution of the 5 enumerated Motions. I

am not persuaded tha t th ere i s an y substantive distincti on between orders entered under Rules 54(b) and 58(1). Rule 58(1) is exp licitly subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b).However, it is in the interest of all parties to a void any potential procedural

qu agmi r e. The logic al path for ward is t o resolve t

he outstanding post-tri al mot ions without d ivestin g the Super ior Court o f jurisdict ion thro ugh a premature ap peal. PICA shall file its response to Hewlett-Packard’s Judgm ent Mo tions by December

10, 2015. Specifically, what is PI CA’s position on the propriety of a stay of execution of the j udgmen t, on the c ondition of

a supercede as bon d? O bvi ous ly, the best result would be i f the par ties can reach an a greem ent that preserves a ppellate rights, as well as orderl y presentatio n of post -trial motion s. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston

___ Judge Mary

M. Johnston
# C_2008079EN.01003501.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 January 2008 — Duyster v Commission

(Case F-80/06) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Parental leave - Application to withdraw parental leave - Lis pendens - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2008/C 79/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Tineke Duyster (Oetrange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: W. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, acting as Agent, and M. van der Woude, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 22 December 2005 declaring inadmissible the applicant's request of 6 December 2005 concerning the Appointing Authority's decision of 17 November 2005 on the date that the applicant's parental leave started

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 33.

1

---
# C_2009044EN.01004302.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/43

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRE DE GAZATE)

(Case T-286/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark TORRE DE GAZATE - Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2009/C 44/74)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL (Tomelloso, Spain) (represented by: J. Casajuana Espinosa, lawyer)

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 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-421/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Vinícola de Tomelloso, SCL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Portugal v Commision**

**(Case T-183/06)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Flax textile – Effectiveness of checks

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 31-32)*

2.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see paras 33-35)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 124, p. 21). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes all of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic in the flax sector; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
S-8 No. 333-2886 pertaining to the 1985 Stock Incentive Program, the Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan, the Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan and the
1994 Stock Option Plan, Forms S-8 No. 333-52037 and No. 333-89275 pertaining to
the 1994 Stock Option Plan and Form S-8 No. 333-68249 pertaining to the Employee
Qualified Stock Purchase Plan of Celeritek, Inc. of our report dated April 25,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Celeritek, Inc.
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2000.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Celeritek, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the management of
Celeritek, Inc. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audit.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial information taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

San Jose, California
May 8, 2000
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON.

No. 411A94-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 7, 2016.

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of NC.

*795G. Robert Flicks, III, Assistant District Attorney.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Cassandra Stubbs, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

D. Clark Smith, Jr., Greensboro, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Donald H. Beskind, Raleigh, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation of NC.

Janet Moore, for N.C. Citizens Excluded from Jury Service Based on Race.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

James P. Cooney, III, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

Gregory B. Craig, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

Alex T. Haskell, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

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

Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*Amended*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay of the Mandate:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of January 2016."

ERVIN, J., recused.
##### 



1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. (the
registrant);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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Joseph P. Schneider
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1376

VERONICA MCGEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:06-cv01965-RWT)

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

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Veronica McGee, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard J. Stief, Associate

General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Veronica McGee appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in this

employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. McGee v. WMATA, No. 8:06-cv-1965-RWT

(D. Md. filed Feb. 29, 2008 & entered March 3, 2008). 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 32.2****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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of theCompany, 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                             /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: May 15, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer