alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                     5

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       Jan-27-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                          Jan-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            Oct-28-2000
<CASH>                                                   3,469,683
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              552,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<Prepaid-Expenses>                                         477,472
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         4,499,704
<PP&E>                                                   1,177,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                            (212,470)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,502,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,665,304
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   289,830
<OTHER-SE>                                               6,624,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             8,502,437
<SALES>                                                  3,929,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3,929,353
<CGS>                                                    4,211,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            4,211,039
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           2,184
[INTEREST-INCOME]                                           60,895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3,934,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (3,934,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3,934,817)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.14)


</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Mr. J. Wade Birdwell

Wallach & Andrews P.C.

550 Bailey Avenue, Suite 500

Fort Worth, TX 76107

Ms. Constance M. Maher

The Maher Law Firm

3020 Matlock Road, Suite 120

Arlington, TX 76015-2901

RE:Case Number:  08-0009

Court of Appeals Number:  02-07-00360-CV

Trial Court Number:  348-219982-06

Style:MIKE BISMAR, M.D.

v.

DOROTHY A. MOREHEAD, VAUGHN R. MOREHEAD AND JAMES P. MOREHEAD, III, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIRS AT LAW OF GLORIA MOREHEAD, DECEASED

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 08-0009Page 1**
Order filed November 20, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00436-CV

____________

JUAN ROMERO, Appellant

V.

STRESSFREE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS & THOMAS BARKER, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1061296

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due November 16, 2015. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before December 18, 

2015, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3632 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3632

  To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2013

Mr. King of Iowa (for himself and Mr. Cotton) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reallocate Federal judgeships for the courts of appeals, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Court Efficiency Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REALLOCATION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate--
            (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the second circuit court 
        of appeals; and
            (2) 1 additional circuit judge for the eleventh circuit 
        court of appeals.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 44(a) of title 28, United States 
Code, is amended in the table--
            (1) in the item relating to the District of Columbia 
        circuit court of appeals, by striking ``11'' and inserting 
        ``8'';
            (2) in the item relating to the second circuit court of 
        appeals, by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''; and
            (3) in the item relating to the eleventh circuit court of 
        appeals, by striking ``12'' and inserting ``13''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         87000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 90845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5270
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2363432
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2277857)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   90845
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9040
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               95403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (86363)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (86363)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (86363)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)


</TABLE>
RICHARDSON, et al. v. The STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 384A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 14, 2014.

Robert Thomas Numbers, II, Raleigh, Richard D. Komer, for Perry, Cynthia, et al.

Renee Flaherty.

Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Raleigh, Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for Richardson, Robert (Reverend) (III), et al.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, for Nash-Rocky Mount Board of Education, et al.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of North Carolina, et al.

Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the North Carolina State Board of Education.

Carrie Virginia McMillan, Raleigh.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General.

Kenneth A. Soo, Raleigh.

**Opinion**

The following Order was entered:

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31(a) and (b)(2) and Rule 15(e)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court on its own initiative hereby certifies for review prior to determination in the Court of Appeals *Richardson, et al. v. State of North Carolina,* COAP14-659. The case shall be docketed in this Court as of the date of this order. Briefs of the respective parties that have been submitted to the Court of Appeals shall be considered by this Court. Any party may file a new brief in this Court consistent *886with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
# CE2004088EN.01058401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/584 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/584

---

(2004/C 88 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3926/02

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject:   Production levy in France

Subject:

Further to my question No. P-2720/01 (1), will the Commission provide details of the measures taken on this matter and the grounds on which they were taken?

1

Can the Commission also say when a solution may be expected?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

(29 August 2003)

Further to its first answer, the Commission is now able to provide the following information. Following an initial examination of the case, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to initiate a formal examination procedure within the meaning of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty with regard to France's contributions to the national intertrade association for livestock and meat.

The Honourable Member is requested to take note of the details of that procedure when they are published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission will endeavour to take a decision within 18 months of the start of the procedure, and will inform the Honourable Member of the final outcome of its examination.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 179.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6765

CRAIG W. EISERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00068-MFU-JCH)

Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig W. Eisert, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig W. Eisert, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

consolidating his two 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions, conditionally filing the consolidated 

petition, and ordering Eisert to file a supplemental petition. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Eisert seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Eisert’s 

motion to appoint counsel and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

  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 of Applix, Inc. (the
  "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 (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) of 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 C. Mahoney
                                      ------------------------------------------
Dated: August 14, 2003                David C. Mahoney

                                      Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010113EN.01003901.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council

(Case T-410/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Calculation of the constructed normal value - Export price - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 113/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd (Lishui, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented; initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Tranita Betina MONTGOMERY.

No. COA15-1000.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mohammed Nadder JILANI.

No. 172P15-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 25, 2015.

Mohammed Nadder Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nadder.

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

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of November 2015."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 25th of November 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of November 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           8,841
<SECURITIES>                                    10,471
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (522)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,824
<PP&E>                                          10,972
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,764)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,535
<SALES>                                         35,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,001
<CGS>                                            7,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (619)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,044)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,044)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
Ex. 99.1

                                 BIOCORAL, INC.
                            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 Biocoral, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nasser
Nassiri, the President, CEO, Chairman of the Board of the Company and the
Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge: (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/ Nasser Nassiri
                                         ------------------
                                         Nasser Nassiri
                                         President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
                                         and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: April 23, 2003

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

No. 4P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jamonte Dion Baker, Polkton, for Baker, Jamonte Dion.

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

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> *744"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
# C_2007020EN.01002602.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/26

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Ballast Nedam v Commission

(Case T-361/06)

(2007/C 20/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Ballast Nedam N.V. (represented by: A.R. Bosman and J.M.M. van de Hel, lawyers)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006, notified to the claimant on 25 September 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), to the extent to which that decision is addressed to the claimant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006, notified to the claimant on 25 September 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), to the extent to which that decision is addressed to the claimant;

| — | in the alternative, annul the decision in part, to the extent to which it is addressed to the claimant, with regard to the duration of the infringement and reduce the fine imposed on the claimant accordingly; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the decision in part, to the extent to which it is addressed to the claimant, with regard to the duration of the infringement and reduce the fine imposed on the claimant accordingly;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

According to the claimant, the Commission assumed, on grounds that are legally and factually flawed, that the claimant exercised a determining influence on the market conduct of Ballast Nedam Infra B.V. and Ballast Nedam Grond en Wegen B.V.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes, in the first place, a breach of Article 81 EC. Second, the claimant submits that there has been an infringement of the general principles of Community law, in particular the principle of the presumption of innocence. In conclusion, the claimant contends that there has been a breach of Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the rights of the defence in that it was not until the decision that the claimant's liability was assumed. The claimant was thus not given an opportunity to disprove that view by adducing evidence.

---