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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136142 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136142 

 COA: 282376 

Shiawassee CC: 04-001520-FC 

BILLY GENE POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 11, 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). 

d0828 

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
Kimarlo Antonio Ragland v. NC Department of Public Instruction

No. 106P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, For NC. Dept. of Public Instruction.

Kimarlo A. Ragland, For Ragland, Kimarlo.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 23rd of March 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 9th of June 2016."
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.22


                 ALLONGE TO CONVERTIBLE NOTE DATED JUNE 18, 2002

                Reference is hereby made to the Convertible Note dated June 18,
2002 (the "Note") by and between Briazz, Inc., a Washington corporation (the
"Maker"), with principal offices located at 3901 7th Avenue South, Suite 200,
Seattle, WA 98108, and Laurus Master Fund, Ltd. (the "Payee"), with principal
offices at c/o Ironshore Corporate Services Ltd., P.O. Box 1234 G.T., Queensgate
House, South Church Street Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. Terms used herein and
not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Note.

            Maker and Payee hereby agree to amend the Note as follows:


            1.  Section 3.1(b) of the Note, shall be amended so that the
                definition of "Fixed Price" shall be $0.50 [closing market price
                prior to execution].

            2.  Section 2.1 of the Note shall be amended by adding the following
                to the end of such Section 2.1:

                "Notwithstanding the foregoing, until the Repayment Date of
                March 3, 2003, the Monthly Amount to be paid by the Borrower
                shall consist of interest payments only. Commencing the
                Repayment Date of March 3, 2003, principal and interests
                payments of the Monthly Amount shall resume."

                Section 2.1 of the Note shall be further amended by changing
                "one-sixteenth" in the first sentence to "one-thirteenth."

            3.  There are no other modifications to the Note.



                                           BRIAZZ, INC.


                                           By: /s/ Victor D. Alhadeff
                                               --------------------------------
                                           Name/Title: Victor D. Alhadeff, CEO
                                                       ------------------------
                                           Dated: December 2, 2002
                                                  -----------------------------


AGREED AND ACCEPTED

LAURUS MASTER FUND, LTD.

By: /s/ David Grin
    --------------------------------
Name:
Title:
Exhibit 23.1

The Board of Directors
Electric Lightwave, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement Form
S-8 (no. 333-61009) of Electric Lightwave,  Inc. our report dated March 1, 2000,
relating to the balance  sheets of Electric  Lightwave,  Inc. as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and the related statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity,
and cash flows for the years in the  three-year  period ended December 31, 1999,
which  report  appears in the  December  31, 1999 annual  report on Form 10-K of
Electric Lightwave, Inc.

New York, New York
February 29, 2000
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136343 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: 136343 

 COA: 273116 

Macomb CC: 2005-005112-FC 

JOSEPH HENRY DUNCIL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

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
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Japan Tobacco v OHIM – Torrefacção Camelo (CAMELO)**

**(Case T-128/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Application for the Community figurative mark CAMELO – Earlier national figurative mark CAMEL – Relative ground for refusal – No risk of profit derived unduly from, and no risk of detriment to, the distinctive character and reputation of the earlier
mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – No infringement of the rules of the appeal procedure – Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see
paras 56-66)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 669/2003‐2) concerning opposition proceedings between Japan Tobacco, Inc. and Torrefacção Camelo L | da | . |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Torrefacção Camelo Lda |
| Community trade mark sought: | Mark containing figurative elements (camel, pyramids, palm trees) and the name CAFÉ TORREFACTO CAMPO MAIOR CAMELO CAFÉ ESPECIAL PURO Torrefacção Camelo Lda CAMPO MAIOR-PORTUGAL, for goods in Class 30 – Application No 1469121 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Japan Tobacco, Inc. |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National figurative mark CAMEL for goods in Classes 22 and 34 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Decision of the Opposition Division set aside |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Japan Tobacco, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Torrefacção Camelo Lda to bear its own costs. |
# C_2008128EN.01001301.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France)) — Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

(Case C-27/07) (1)

1

(Corporation tax - Directive 90/435/EEC - Taxable income of a parent company - Non deductibility of costs and expenses relating to a holding in a subsidiary - Fixing of costs at a flat rate - Ceiling of 5 % of the profits distributed by the subsidiary - Inclusion of tax credits)

(2008/C 128/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Add-back to the taxable income of the parent company of a fixed proportion of the costs and expenses, equal to 5 % of the income from its holdings in a subsidiary, including tax credits — Compatibility of that add back with the limit provided for in Article 4 of the directive — Need for the tax credit to be entirely set off against the tax payable by the parent company.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘profits distributed by the subsidiary’, within the meaning of the last sentence of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which includes in those profits tax credits which have been granted in order to offset a withholding tax levied by the Member State of the subsidiary in the hands of the parent company.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Kurt Allen COREY.

No. COA15-1207.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
----

(2004/C 33 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2495/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject:   EU aid to countries practising sharia

In November 2001 in Nigeria, a woman was sentenced to be stoned for infidelity. In March 2002, the woman was freed after immense international pressure. A similar situation has now arisen again. On 19 August 2002, Amina Lawal was condemned to death by stoning for having engaged in extramarital sex. Such barbaric and medieval methods of punishment are unacceptable to the international community.

Experience shows that people who are condemned to such insane punishments can only be saved by the international community. However, the international community should not have to be mobilised on an ad hoc basis every time such a case occurs in a country which practises sharia. The author of this question takes the view that systematic sanctions against and constant pressure on such medieval regimes would have a far more beneficial effect than the method used hitherto which has principally consisted in the international community reacting only after extreme pressure from various interest groups.

Will the Commission therefore provide figures to illustrate the extent of EU aid to countries practising sharia? If the EU does give aid to such countries, will the Commission say whether such aid, which is provided with no human rights conditions attached, is consistent with the Commission's understanding of law and order, and whether it should be withdrawn immediately?

----
# CE2004078EN.01041501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/415 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/415

---

(2004/C 78 E/0436)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2670/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Ban on simultaneous enrolment at several institutes of higher education

Subject:

The quality of education throughout the European Union is a priority for all the Member States. To become ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ is the European Union's new strategic goal announced at the European Council meeting in Lisbon.

In Italy, Article 142 of the unified text of Royal Decree No 1592 of 31 August 1933 bans simultaneous enrolment at more than one university, institute of higher education, faculty or school in the same university or institute or for more than one degree or diploma course in the same faculty or school.

Can the Commission express its views on this ban on simultaneous enrolment for several university courses laid down by Italian law?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

(10 October 2003)

The matter of the ban on simultaneous enrolment at several higher education institutions raised by the Honourable Member concerns the organisation of education systems and, as such, under Article 149 (1) of the EC Treaty, falls within the competence of the Member States and not of the Community.

---
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

13 December 2007

Case F-42/06

**Asa Sundholm**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2004 appraisal – Objectives of and criteria for appraisal – Damages)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Sundholm seeks in particular annulment of her career development report
for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004, and an order that the Commission pay her the sum of one euro in compensation
for the non-material harm she alleges that career development report to have caused her.

**Held:**The applicant’s career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2004 is annulled. The remainder of
the action is dismissed. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material
damage*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)*

1.      It is clear from the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(5) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the administration has a duty to set goals and assessment criteria for the holder
of the post. Under that provision, the formal interview that is held between the reporting officer and the holder of the post
at the start of each appraisal procedure should cover not just the appraisal of that person’s performance during the reference
period, which runs from 1 January to 31 December of the year preceding that in which the procedure is conducted, but also
the setting of targets for the year following the reference period, those targets constituting the reference basis for assessing
his efficiency. That duty is reiterated in the guide to appraisal which the Commission has adopted as a code of conduct.

Where no goals or assessment criteria have been set for the reference period in question, the administration cannot claim
that the goals assigned for the previous reference period were extended on the ground that they did not include any date when
they would cease to be valid.

(see paras 31-32, 37)

See:

190/82 *Blomefield* v *Commission* [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20

T-63/89 *Latham* v *Commission* [1991] ECR II‐19, para. 25; T‐269/01 *Tatti* v *Commission* [2003] ECR-SC I‐A‐225 and II‐1093, para. 43

2.      The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and,
in principle (that is to say, in the absence from that act of any expressly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities
likely to cause him damage), sufficient reparation for any non-material harm which the applicant may have suffered by reason
of the annulled act.

(see para. 44)

See:

T-60/94 *Pierrat* v *Court of Justice* [1995] ECR-SC I‐A‐23 and II‐77, para. 62
HIGH POINT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. HIGHMARK PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

No. 8PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Alan B. Powell, High Point, Attorney at Law, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Ellis B. Drew, III, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Highmark Properties, LLC, et al.

Christopher Charles Finan, High Point, Attorney at Law, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Matthew Allen Lawson Anderson, Attorney at Law, for High Point Bank and Trust Company.

Ann G. Sugg, Attorney at Law, for Highmark Properties, LLC, et al.

G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Frank Goldsmith, Marion, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

**Opinion***64The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of October 2014 by Defendants to Strike:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Rashad ARMSTRONG.

No. 266P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Armstrong, Thomas Rashad.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 31st of July 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 15th of December 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Grant King, 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:  February
22, 2010








/s/ Grant
      King
              Grant
      King
              Chief
      Executive Officer
# C_2012355EN.01001501.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Total Nederland v Commission

(Case T-348/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous nature of the infringement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement)

2012/C 355/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Total Nederland NV (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for partial 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)), 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 Total Nederland NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Total Nederland NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
mpr10q20101031ex10bv.htm



 



	 	Exhibit (10)(bv)	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
Suite 300


3025 Chemical Road


Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

	 





 


 


 


 


 


 




November 29, 2010


 


 


Mr. Gary J. Morgan


Senior Vice President - Finance & CFO


Met-Pro Corporation


160 Cassell Road 


Harleysville, Pa. 19438


 


Re: Demand Line of Credit


 


Dear Gary,


 



	Please be advised that we have reaffirmed your Discretionary Demand Line of Credit in the amount of $4,000,000 from November 30, 2010 through November 30, 2011. Borrowings under the Line will be on mutually agreeable terms and conditions, and will be subject to review from time to time. Borrowings are evidenced by the Demand Promissory Note dated February 23,1996 and advances will be available at our discretion.





 


Sincerely,


 


 


/s/Dale R. Carr


 


Dale R. Carr 


Senior Vice President


 


 


 


Agreed and Accepted this     2nd       day of   December    2010.


 


 


 


 


 



 



	/s/Raymond J. De Hont	 	/s/Gary J. Morgan 
	Raymond J. De Hont	 	Gary J. Morgan 
	Chairman and CEO 	 	Senior Vice President -Finance & CFO
STATE of North Carolina v. Rigoberto Castellano AGUILAR.

No. COA15-627.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.