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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,035
<SECURITIES>                                    14,630
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,835
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (716)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,065
<PP&E>                                          16,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,018
<SALES>                                         24,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,067
<CGS>                                           14,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,387)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,065)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.36)


</TABLE>
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007

Case C-8/06 P

**Anna Herrero Romeu**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02 *Herrero Romeu* v *Commission* [2005] ECR‐SC I‐A‐295 and II‐1349, seeking the annulment of that judgment.

**Held :**Appeal dismissed.

**Summary**

1.        *Appeals – Grounds – New submission of an argument – Admissibility – Limits*

*(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 113(2))*

2.        *Officials – Remuneration – Expatriation allowance – Conditions for granting*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex VII, Art. 4(1)(a))*

1.        It follows from Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 113(2) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of Justice, that, on appeal, an appellant may put forward any relevant argument, provided only that the subject-matter
of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not changed in the appeal.

2.        Even if the distribution of responsibilities at intra-State level varies according to the institutional make-up of each State,
that State must be considered to be a unitary subject of public international law. In the light of that approach, it is essential
that the State be represented, vis-à-vis other States and international organisations, by a system of a single diplomatic
representation, which reflects the unitary nature of the State concerned, at international level.

Although it is not essential, in order for the official concerned to be considered to have worked for ‘another State’, that
he should have been employed by the central administration of that State, his functional integration within the permanent
representation of that State constitutes a decisive factor.

In that respect, both those who work for a State through the intermediary of its central administration and those who work
for an autonomous community through its administration must be considered to be in a situation of expatriation within the
meaning of Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as long as they are formally integrated into the permanent
representation of that State.

Accordingly, for the purposes of interpreting the expression ‘work done for another State’ used in the second indent of Article
4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, the only fact to be considered relevant is that the work is done within a permanent
representation of a State. Therefore, work done for governments of political subdivisions of States cannot be regarded as
work done for a State if the person concerned has not been formally integrated into the permanent representation of the State.
##### 



EXHIBIT 14
 FENTURA FINANCIAL, INC.
CODE OF ETHICS
  1.
    
    I will act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of
interest in all personal and professional relationships.2.
    
    I will provide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant,
timely and understandable.3.
    
    I will comply with the rules and regulations of federal, state, and local
governments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.4.
    
    I will act in good faith, responsibly, and with due care. I will not
misrepresent material facts or allow my independent judgment to be subordinated or
otherwise compromised.5.
    
    I will respect and maintain the confidentiality of information reviewed or
acquired in carrying out my duties except when authorized or otherwise legally
obligated to disclose.6.
    
    I will share knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to the needs
of the Company.7.
    
    I will proactively practice and promote ethical behavior as a professional in my
role with the Company.8.
    
    I will not solicit for myself or for a third party anything of value from
anyone in return for any business, service or confidential information of the Company,
nor will I accept anything of value from anyone (except for my wages and as otherwise
permitted by law) in connection with the business of the Company, either before or
after a transaction is discussed or completed.9.
    
    I will comply with and adhere to all of the Companys policies and practices,
including those policies governing accounting and financial reporting practices and
corporate governance.10.
    
    I will respond honestly and candidly when dealing with the Companys
independent and internal auditors, regulators and attorneys.11.
    
    I will promptly disclose to an appropriate person or persons any transaction or
relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest,
and/or violations of this Code.
 (Signature)
    
    (Date)
 (Rvsd
01/05)
State of North Carolina v. Vinson Shane Hill, Defendant.

No. COA16-133

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00419-CR

Carlos ENRIQUEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-9565-W

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure provides that an appeal “must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has

the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The clerk’s record, which was filed on CD-ROM, contains a written plea bargain, and the

punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to
04-08-00419-CR

-2-

by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant

has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). In addition, appellant’s counsel has filed a

letter in which she states that she has reviewed the electronic clerk’s record and “can find no right

of appeal for Appellant;” counsel concedes that the appeal must be dismissed. In light of the record

presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this

appeal. TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# C_2009082EN.01000402.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV

(Case C-339/07) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Court with jurisdiction)

(2009/C 82/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Deko Marty Belgium NV

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a debtor's main interests is situated in respect of judgments deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them — Action (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) for reimbursement of a payment by the debtor to a company whose registered office is in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose registered office is in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMANUEL UZUEGBUNAM, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-96-43) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Uzuegbunam, Appellant Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel Uzuegbunam appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Uzuegbunam’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Uzuegbunam , No. CR-96-43 (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00545-CR

Ricky D. ZIENTEK,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-8703

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2008

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s

appellate counsel notified this court that appellant does not have a right to appeal in this case.

Counsel further indicated that appellant would not file an amended trial court certification showing

that he has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State,
04-08-00545-CR

-2-

110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we

agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
# CE2004070EN.01025301.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/253 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/253

---

(2004/C 70 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3308/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Museum of Europe

Subject:

In 2006, the ‘Museum of Europe’ (run by a non-profit-making association) is scheduled to open. The European Parliament has made premises available for it. The cost of setting up the museum is estimated at EUR 22,5 m. Various bodies have promised support, including the Belgian Government and a number of private enterprises. The European institutions are also planning to provide support.

What is the estimated amount of support to be provided by the Commission and other European institutions for the setting-up of the museum? What financial support is planned for the museum's annual operating costs after 2006?

Who are the members of the museum's management bodies (Board of Directors, Management Committee, Accessions Committee, etc.)? What criteria apply to their selection?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

The Commission has not contributed financially to setting up the Museum of Europe, and it cannot say whether the other European institutions have contributed.

There are no plans to fund the Museum of Europe's operating costs in 2006.

The Commission is not involved in selecting or appointing the members of the Museum of Europe's administration. It would therefore ask the Honourable Member to contact the Museum of Europe directly for further information.

---
William Gerald Price v. Pamela Barlow, et al., D.B.A.Clerk of Superior Court of Ashe, North Carolina

No. 257P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

William Gerald Price, for Price, William Gerald.

*513Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 11th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Ashe County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10514 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v NOAH ORTEGA Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-ALL-C

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Noah Ortega appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress prior to his conditionally pleading guilty to transporting illegal aliens. Ortega contends that Border Patrol Agent Randy Betscher did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to warrant the investigatory stop of Ortega’s vehicle.No. 03-10514 -2- A Border Patrol agent conducting a roving patrol may make a temporary investigatory stop of a vehicle if the agent is aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicle’s occupant is engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce , 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). In determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists, the courts must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop. United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 273-76 (2002)
. Consideration of the relevant factors, viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances and in the light most favorable to the Government, indicates that the district court did not err in concluding that there was reasonable suspicion for the stop.
See United States v. Neufeld-Neufeld , 338 F.3d 374, 378-82 (5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.3**

**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This **AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT** (“Amendment”) is entered into this 21st day ofFebruary 2007, by and between **PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES** (“Company”) and **ANGELEE J. HARRIS** (“Employee”). 

**WHEREAS,** Employee and Company entered into an Employment Agreement, dated January 24, 2005 (the “Agreement”); and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 5 of the Agreement sets forth Company’s potential obligations upon the termination of Employee’s employment with Company; and 

**WHEREAS**, Employee and Company have agreed to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment in order to provide for payments to be made incompliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and guidance thereunder, which section was added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004; and 

**WHEREAS**, Section 22 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the parties. 

**NOW THEREFORE,**Employee and Company agree as follows: 

1. A new Subsection (h) entitled “Timing of Payment” is added to Section 5 of the Agreement, to read as set forth below: 

(h) **Timing of Payment**. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, if any amount payable hereunder is considered to becompensation deferred under a “nonqualified deferred compensation plan” as defined for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”), and if Employee is deemed to be a“specified employee” as defined for purposes of Section 409A, then, to the extent necessary to comply with Section 409A, amounts due under this Agreement in connection with a termination of Employee’s employment that wouldotherwise have been payable at any time during the six-month period immediately following such termination of employment shall not be paid prior to, and shall instead be payable in a lump sum as soon as practicable following, the expiration of suchsix-month period. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the application of Section 409A, Company makes no guarantee as to the income tax treatment under Section 409A of any payments made or benefits provided under this Agreement.

 

1 

2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 
**PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES**
By: /s/ Frank J.Mercardante                                        
  /s/ Angelee J.Harris                                        
      Frank J. Mercardante

      Chief Executive Officer
  **ANGELEE J. HARRIS**
 

2
# C_2008285EN.01005402.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/54

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Coto Moreno v Commission

(Case F-127/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list of successful candidates - Assessment of written and oral tests)

(2008/C 285/97)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Juana Maria Coto Moreno (Gaborone, Botswana) (represented by: K. Lemmens and C. Doutrelepont, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO AD/25/05 of 12 February 2007 not to include the applicant's name on the reserve list of successful candidates for that competition — Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses Ms Coto Moreno's action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses Ms Coto Moreno's action;

| 2. | Orders that each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008, p. 57.

1

---
ALISTAIR TIVER, MAusIMM



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON





To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Alistair Tiver, MAusIMM, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004

(collectively, the Technical Report).

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 24 day of March, 2005.

signed

_______________________
Alistair Tiver, MAusIMM

[Seal or Stamp]
# C_2008209EN.01003802.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SAVA e C. Srl, SIEME Srl, GRADED SpA v Mostra d'Oltremare SpA, Cofathec Servizi SpA and Others

(Case C-194/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 209/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
State v. Willie Bernard Melvin

209P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Willie B. Melvin, for Melvin, Willie Bernard.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of May 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review of the Order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."