alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of November 2015 by Defendant in the Alternative to Declare the One Hundred Twenty-Five Day Deadline for Capitally Tried Cases Applies:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

JACKSON, J. recused.
Specimen of Series C 15% Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock Certificate



 Exhibit 4.3 

 

 

 Exhibit 4.3 authenttdate holding corp. Incorporated under the Laws of the State of Delaware
see Reverse for certain definition Series C 15% Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock Par Value $0.10 Per Share This is to Certify that is the owner of Series C 15% Convertible Redeemable Preferred Fully paid and non-assessable shares of the above
corporation transferable only on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. Witness, the seal of the corporation and the signatures of its duly
authorized Officers. Dated © 1999 CORPEX BANKNOTE CO., BAY SHORE N.Y. 








 

 

 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations; TEN COM - as tenants in common UNIF TRANSFERS MIN ACT- Custodian (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties under Uniform Transfers to
Minors Act JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of (State) survivorship and not as tenants in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE
PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) NEITHER THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE NOR THE SECURITIES INTO WHICH THESE SECURITIES ARE CONVERTIBLE HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS. THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR ASSIGNED (I) IN THE ABSENCE OF (A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE
SECURITIES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, OR (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, IN A GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FORM, THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SAID ACT (II) UNLESS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED TO A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF
RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR (III) UNLESS SOLD PURSUANT TO RULE 144 OR RULE 144A UNDER SAID ACT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE SECURITIES MAY BE PLEDGED IN CONNECTION WITH A BONA FIDE MARGIN ACCOUNT OR OTHER LOAN OR FINANCING
ARRANGEMENT SECURED BY THE SECURITIES. NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. For value
received hereby sell, assign and transfer unto shares represented by the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises. dated in presence of
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<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>                                           2,113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,033
<INVENTORY>                                      7,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,533
<PP&E>                                         127,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,821
<BONDS>                                        134,301
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,377
<SALES>                                        235,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,839
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,934
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,007
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,007
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐503/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 79/409/EEC – Conservation of wild birds – Derogations from the system of protection of wild birds – Region of Liguria

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see
paras 22-23)*

2.                     *Environment – Conservation of wild birds – Directive 79/409 – Implementation by Member States (Art. 226 EC; Council Directive
79/409, Art. 9) (see para. 24)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Adoption and application by the Region of Liguria of legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by adopting and applying, for the region of Liguria, legislation authorising derogations from the system of protection for wild birds which fails to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the conservation of wild birds, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to bear the costs, including those linked to the interlocutory proceedings. |
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00094-CV

COLETTE SAVAGE,

Appellant

v.

MARK SAVAGE,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 52939

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Colette Savage filed a pro se notice of appeal stating that she is 

appealing two orders: (1) the “Order Granting Dismissal of McDonald as Defendant and 

Ordering Sanctions Against Colette Clara Savage” and (2) the “Order Regarding 

Requests for Admissions Filed by Colette Savage.” Both orders were signed by the trial 

court on February 17, 2016. However, all pending parties and claims have not been 

disposed of in this case; therefore, there is no final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001). 
Savage v. Savage Page 2

This Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final, 

unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an appeal before final judgment. 

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012 (West 2015). None of the exceptions to the 

rule that only final judgments can be appealed applies in this case. See id. § 51.014 (West 

Supp. 2015) (listing interlocutory judgments that may be appealed before final judgment 

is rendered in the case). 

We notified Appellant that her appeal might be dismissed for want of jurisdiction 

unless she filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. This 

appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant’s 

request for more time to conduct more research is dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 28, 2016

[CV06]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

                                Amendment to the
                           Retainer Continuation Plan
                          for Independent Directors of
                     The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

                          Effective as of July 24, 1997

      1. The first sentence of Section 4.6(b) of the Plan is amended to read as
follows:

      "For purposes of this Section 4.6, the Present Value of a Participant's
Plan Benefit shall be based on the Plan Benefit accrued as of January 1, 1997
(or, in the event the transfer of the Present Value occurs after January 1,
1997, the Present Value of a Participant's Plan Benefit shall be based on the
Plan Benefit accrued as of the date of such transfer) reflecting service as an
Independent Director through December 31, 1996 or, if later, to the fifth
anniversary of the commencement of service as an Independent Director."
545 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERS 

ATrORNEY GLNIIAL 

Hon. Chnrlse R. Martin 

county huaitor 

Harrison county 

M*rrhall, Tex88 

DWf sira 

,I- I’ 

) 

‘Tb County Xrylnoem 

Texas cm plamdig 8 state 

waoo, Texas, in the near r 

working out way8 or 

in road work, 0 

or tbr 

r logally approve 

srioamr8' oou.rt a 

ln attenaiag ruoh 

I a 00~ 0r linitbd j~ridi0- 

oonrorrcrd upon it by the coaState bT expmsr toraw or by inplioat, 173 S.W. 308; Ulllsr v. Brown, 216 

County, 11b S.'X. ed 479; rJalvrrton, 

ounty, lb7 S.T. Zd 1084; 11 TOX. Jur. 

mrl8lona of the YardTaxaa, Regular 9o~alon, 4Wd Logirlatum , 19Jlj aa wall ae4 the proticlions or the gaeaml road law, and M are unable to find any 

provirloa nhioh suthoritor the conmt.rrlonmw* court or Harrlaon 

County to rxpand oormty funds ia paymaat Of a olalm for tmvellng 

rxpm8ar 0r the oharaater mentioned ln your lottar. 
546 

Hon. Charles Ii. '%rtia - Page E 

In rier of the above ana r0r6g0ing, it ia OUT op*tiion 

that you cannot legally a?prOve the olai5 aoverlng the Cymtp 

b&,“yr*e expeheee in attending the meeting mterrea t* in your 

. c” 

Your8 very truly 

ATTOP~Y LJLERnL O?, TEXAS 

JAE:djm 

.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00065-CV

______________________________

IN RE: EXPUNCTION REQUEST BY

KIMBERLY DENISE VARGAS

 

On Appeal from the 123rd Judicial District Court

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-134-EX

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a joint motion requesting this Court to abate the appeal and remand

the cause to the trial court for further proceedings, stating that an agreement has been reached

between the parties. 

Accordingly, this case is abated and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 2, 2008

Date Decided: September 3, 2008
# C_2011311EN.01003102.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-344/05) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guaranteee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Beef - Extensification payment - Arable crops - Fruit and vegetables - Aid for processing of citrus fruit - Conditions for application of 100 % flat-rate financial correction - Proportionality)

2011/C 311/52

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and E. Svolopoulou, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Visaggio, agents, and by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, 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 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the beef, arable crops and fruit and vegetables sectors.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, 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 from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, 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 from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001;

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the Hellenic Republic. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---
# C_2023321EN.01006402.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/64

---

Action brought on 25 July 2023 — Universität Koblenz v EACEA

(Case T-432/23)

(2023/C 321/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Universität Koblenz (represented by: R. Di Prato and C. von der Lühe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Education and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreement 2012-3028 in the amount of EUR 197 216,97 made by letter of the defendant of 12 May 2023 under reference EACEA/530181(2012-3028)23D001392 have no basis; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the claims for recovery in respect of Grant Agreement 2012-3028 in the amount of EUR 197 216,97 made by letter of the defendant of 12 May 2023 under reference EACEA/530181(2012-3028)23D001392 have no basis;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that, notwithstanding the submission of supporting evidence, reimbursable costs were not fully recognised. The evidence and observations submitted by the applicant were in part not sufficiently assessed. The requirements imposed by the defendant regarding the provision of evidence are excessive and are not covered by the spirit and purpose of the provisions of the Grant Agreement in question.

---
# C_2009006EN.01001801.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-187/06) (1)

1

(2009/C 6/31)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2008.

1

---
STATE v. Thedford Roy RORIE, Jr.

No. 311P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rorie, Jr., Thedford Roy.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of September 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# C_2010317EN.01005101.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/51

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Blank and Others v Commission

(Case F-103/06) (1)

1

()

2010/C 317/94

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006, p. 35.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 15, 2002 the and as amended on March 31, 2003 and the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, 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 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                          /s/ David Mahoney
                                          -------------------------------------
Dated: May 19, 2003                       David C. Mahoney

                                          Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136247 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: 136247 

 COA: 273907 

Oakland CC: 2006-206284-FH 

RICHARD JAMES FARRELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamie RIESON.

No. 415P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Jamie Rieson, Asheboro, for Rieson, Jamie.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Rockingham County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-119285, Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form
S-8 No. 333-74565, Form S-8 No. 333-96197, Form S-8 No. 333-37658, Form S-8 No.
333-72778 and Form S-8 No. 333-107273) pertaining to Renal Care Group, Inc.'s 9%
Senior Subordinated Notes due 2011, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors, the Renal Care Group,
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and
Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Dialysis Centers of America, Inc. Equity
Compensation Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1999 Long - Term Incentive Plan,
the Renal Disease Management by Physicians, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998
Stock Plan, and the Renal Care Group, Inc., Amended and Restated 1999 Long-Term
Incentive Plan of our report dated March 1, 2005, with respect to Renal Care
Group, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                              /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 1, 2005
GOODWIN v. SMITH.

No. 398P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, for Smith, Norman B.

Wesley Goodwin, Greensboro, for Goodwin, Wesley Foust-Graham.

**Opinion***429The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of October 2015 by Plaintiff to Deny Defendant's Prayer for Dismissal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."