alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of North Carolina v. Kalvin Michael Smith

No. 85P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney, for Smith, Kalvin Michael.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth 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 18th of August 2016."
DARBY v. CAMPBELL, et al.

No. 171P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Arthur Donald Darby, Jr., Fayetteville, for Darby, Arthur Donald (Jr.).

**Opinion***212The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of May 2015 by Plaintiff for Summons Motion Open Court to Clerk in Above:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
----

----

**Section906 Certifications**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theannual report of **Nevsun Resources Ltd.** (the “Company”) on Form 40-F forthe fiscal year ending **December 31, 2014**, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), **I**, **CliffordT. Davis, Chief Executive Officer** of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | **February 25, 2015** |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | **/s/ *Clifford T. Davis*** |
|--------|-----------------------------|

| By: | *__________________________* |
|-----|------------------------------|

|   | **Clifford T. Davis**Chief Executive Officer** |
|--------|------------------------------------------------|

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 26, 2011 

p0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

143309 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143309 

 COA: 303757 

Jackson CC: 10-005121-FH 

FRANKLIN DELANO THAYER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2011 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, asamended, of Point Therapeutics, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: June 1, 2004
# CE2004078EN.01046401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/464 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/464

---

(2004/C 78 E/0489)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3099/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Aid for the farming of mussels

Subject:

The eutrophication of our coastal seas continues to be a major environmental problem even though certain measures have been taken on land to reduce the leakage of nutrients into the sea. Eco-systems adjust to some extent to the growing quantity of vegetable plankton caused by eutrophication through a sharp increase in the number of mussels and other organisms that act as filters. These filters are of crucial importance in reducing plankton biomass in coastal seas. The risk of harmful plankton efflorescence is reduced in areas with many filters. In some areas there are good opportunities for biological manipulation of fjord systems as it were by increasing the number of filters with the aid of mussel farming.

Today mussels are already being farmed in coastal areas including Bohuslän in Sweden, but attempts to expand such farming have entailed major problems. Mussel farming is hampered by long periods when harvesting has to stop because of toxic algae that make mussels poisonous.

How does the Commission assess the strategic role of mussel farming as a way of reducing the incidence of eutrophication and what measures are being taken to ensure that this industry can survive commercially?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

The Commission is certainly aware of the problems caused by eutrophication to the marine ecosystem.

The causes of this problem are diverse and their interrelation complex. However, a high level of nutrients in the water appears to be a condition sine qua non for the development of eutrophication episodes.

For that reason, Community action in this field mainly aims at reducing the input of nutrients to the marine waters, independently of their origin.

Aquaculture activities, both in freshwater and in the marine, are in some cases at the origin of effluents rich in nutrients to the sea. For that reason, the use of farmed mussels as natural fighters against eutrophication should be carefully assessed before its possible implementation. Moreover, as toxin-producing algae are often carried from offshore to inshore waters by currents, they can be harmful irrespective of the level of filter feeders near the coast.

Farming of mussels and other bivalves may enjoy, as many other forms of aquaculture, the measures foreseen in Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

1

---
EXHIBIT 10.2



                                  AMENDMENT TO

                                     BYLAWS

                                       OF

                        ENVISION SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC

                              A NEVADA CORPORATION


         The  first  sentence  of  Article  III,  Section  3.2 of the  Bylaws of
Envision  Solar  International,  Inc.  ("Bylaws") is hereby amended and restated
(the "Amendment") as follows:

         "The number of directors  which shall  constitute the whole board shall
be seven (7)."

         The Bylaws shall remain in effect as modified by this Amendment  except
to the  extent  that the Bylaws  contradict  the  Amendment,  in which case this
Amendment shall govern.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY:

         That I am the duly elected,  qualified and acting Secretary of Envision
Solar  International,  Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),  and that the
foregoing  Amendment  to the Bylaws  was  validly  adopted  on July 11,  2014 by
written consent of the Board of Directors of the Company.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto set my hand this 11th day of July
2014.


                                    /s/ Desmond Wheatley
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Desmond Wheatley, Secretary
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 Sustainable Environmental Technologies Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Glaser, 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:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 14, 2012

| |     |                         | 
| | --- | ----------------------- | 
| | By: | /s/ Robert Glaser       | 
| |     | Robert Glaser           | 
| |     | Chief Executive Officer |
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3834 

To ensure that certain communities may be granted exceptions for 

floodproofed residential basements for purposes of determining risk premium rates for flood insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2014 

Mr. CRAMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To ensure that certain communities may be granted exceptions for floodproofed residential basements for purposes 

of determining risk premium rates for flood insurance. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flood Safe Basements 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FLOODPROOFED RESIDENTIAL 

7 BASEMENTS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3834 IH

1 (1) for purposes of rating a floodproofed cov2 ered structure, the term ‘‘adjusted base flood ele3 vation’’ means the base flood elevation for a covered 

4 structure on the applicable effective flood insurance 

5 rate map, plus 1 foot; 

6 (2) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad7 ministrator of the Federal Emergency Management 

8 Agency; 

9 (3) the term ‘‘applicable flood plain manage10 ment measures’’ means flood plain management 

11 measures adopted by a community under section 

12 60.3(c) of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations; 

13 (4) the term ‘‘covered structure’’ means a resi14 dential structure— 

15 (A) that is located in a community that 

16 has adopted flood plain management measures 

17 that are approved by the Federal Emergency 

18 Management Agency and satisfy the require19 ments for an exception for floodproofed residen20 tial basements under section 60.6(c) of title 44, 

21 Code of Federal Regulations; and 

22 (B) that was built in compliance with the 

23 applicable flood plain management measures; 

24 (5) the term ‘‘floodproofed elevation’’ means the 

25 height of floodproofing on a structure, as identified 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3834 IH

1 on the Residential Basement Floodproofing Certifi2 cate for the structure; and 

3 (6) the term ‘‘National Flood Insurance Pro4 gram’’ means the program established under the Na5 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 

6 et seq.). 

7 (b) PRESERVATION OF BASEMENT EXCEPTION.— 

8 Notwithstanding the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Re9 form Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–141; 126 Stat. 916), 

10 the amendments made by that Act, or any other provision 

11 of law, the Administrator shall rate a covered structure 

12 using the elevation difference between the floodproofed ele13 vation of the covered structure and the adjusted base flood 

14 elevation of the covered structure. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. April Jean Anderson

No. 432PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 23, 2016

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kimberley A. D'Arruda, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

James N. Freeman, Jr., Elkin, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                           8,980
<SECURITIES>                                    15,376
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (600)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,179
<PP&E>                                          15,464
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,392)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,267
<BONDS>                                          1,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,441
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,817
<SALES>                                         12,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,421
<CGS>                                            4,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (469)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (797)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (797)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
PARAMOUNT RX, INC. v. Robert E. DUGGAN and Agelity, Inc.

No. 376A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 24, 2016.

Christopher Jones, Raleigh, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

Leslie C. Packer, Raleigh, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

James Michael Weiss, for Duggan, Robert E., et al.

Amanda G. Ray, Raleigh, for Paramount Rx, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 24th of February 2016 to Stay the Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of February 2016."
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-307-CR

LAVAR DANDRE YOUNG APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ST

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT 1

----------

We have considered the “Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection
with the Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd.  (the "Company") on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Clarke,
the Chairman, President and 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 2002, 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.



/@/ John A. Clarke



John A. Clarke

President and Chief Executive Officer



March 30, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES
AND OF THE COMPANY'S 10Q FOR THE QUARTER END AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         804,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,727
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        329,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     368,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,727
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,376
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,788
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of J.W.M.

No. COA15-1287.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 7, 2017

Order 

Clerk

September 7, 2017

155245(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 155245

v COA: 326311

Wayne CC: 14-009512-FC

ELISAH KYLE THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief submitted on 

September 1, 2017, is accepted for filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0366

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ERICA ANN DION,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 17, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 12 2020

11/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0366