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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         234951
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1887
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2247932
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2010306)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239513
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27395
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               221276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (193881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (193881)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (193881)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)


</TABLE>
In the Matter of K.P.

No. COA15-1319.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2008142EN.01002501.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2008 — Meggle v OHIM — Clover (HiQ with trefoil)

(Case T-37/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 142/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meggle AG (Wasserburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Raab and H. Lauf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Clover Corporation Limited (Sydney, Australia)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1130/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Meggle AG and Clover Corporation Limited

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document





































 



 
 

  EXHIBIT 4.1    
    

 






					
	Number

A-	 	Incorporated Under the Laws of

the State of Delaware	 	Shares

-0-
	

 	
 	
 	
 	
Cusip No.




 

  
 

  LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION    
    
    Series A Common Stock, par value $.01 per share    
    
    Specimen Certificate    
    


        This Certifies that [                    ] is the owner of
[                    ] FULLY PAID AND
NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION (hereinafter called the "Corporation") transferable on the books of the Corporation by the
holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by
the Registrar. 


        Witness,
the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated: 


Liberty
Broadband Corporation 


[Corporate
Seal] 

 






			
	






 President	 	





 Secretary




 

 








QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 4.1


LIBERTY BROADBAND CORPORATION Series A Common Stock, par value $.01 per share Specimen Certificate
# C_2008142EN.01002201.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-123/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 142/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

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

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Shaka Amalik WILLIAMS.

No. COA15-635.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Prejudicial Error.
Exhibit 32.2



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Kenneth W. Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Pediatric  Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Pediatric  Prosthetics,  Inc.


                                     By:/s/ Kenneth W. Bean
                                     --------------------------
                                     Kenneth Bean
                                     Principal Financial Officer
June 28, 2006

<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-278-CR

CELINDA ANN LEWIS	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF PARKER COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	On April 21, 2008, Appellant Celinda Ann Lewis pleaded guilty to assault- bodily injury to a family member.  Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Lewis was sentenced to 365 days’ confinement in the Parker County Jail and ordered to pay a $500 fine.  The trial court suspended imposition of the jail portion of the sentence and placed Lewis on twelve months’ community supervision.  On that same day, the trial court entered its certification of Lewis’s right to appeal in accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2).  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  The certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

	Lewis filed a notice of appeal on August 1, 2008.  We notified Lewis’s attorney on August 13, 2008, that the certification indicating that Lewis had no right to appeal had been filed in this court and that this appeal would be dismissed unless Lewis or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response on or before August 25, 2008, showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3.  Lewis filed a response on August 28, 2008, indicating that she is attempting to appeal her claimed denial of counsel and involuntary plea.2

	Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right to appeal in a plea bargain case to those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or to those cases in which the appellant obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(A), (B).  Although Lewis filed a response, she has not indicated that either of these exceptions apply in this case.  See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.  Here, appellant had no right of appeal because he was sentenced pursuant to the agreed terms of a plea bargain and did not satisfy either of the exceptions stated in Rule 25.2(a)(2).”).

	Therefore, in accordance with the trial court’s certification that this is a plea-bargain case and that Lewis has no right to appeal, we dismiss this appeal “without further action.”  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 43.2(f); Chavez, 183 S.W.3d at 680.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  September 25, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,007,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 942,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        398,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     500,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   942,295
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,749
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,834
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,834
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
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

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, each of the undersigned  officers of Yukon Gold
Corporation,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to such  officer's
knowledge, that:

      The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended July 31, 2005
(the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the  requirement of section
13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and the  information
contained in the Form 10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: September 13, 2005

                                          /s/ W. Warren Holmes
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          W. Warren Holmes, CEO
                                         (Chief Executive Officer of Yukon Gold
                                          Corporation, Inc.)


Dated: September 13, 2005

                                          /s/ Rene Galipeau
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Rene Galipeau, Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Chief Financial Officer of Yukon Gold
                                          Corporation, Inc.)

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to Yukon Gold  Corporation,  Inc.  and will be  retained by Yukon Gold
Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14 Certification**I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Cronos Group (the “Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report information; and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:March 29, 2006  /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ
In the Matter of D.D.

No. COA15-786.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
State of North Carolina v. Eric Lamark Seegars, Defendant.

No. COA16-150

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
DOT v. ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING OF CHARLOTTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

206PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2016

Kenneth A. Sack, Assistant Attorney General, Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Associate City Attorney, for Department of Transportation.

Craig D. Justus, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Adams Outdoor Advertising of Charlotte Limited Partnership.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 24th of October 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of October 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 31st day of October 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Westaff, Inc.

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s first fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting whichare 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| Date: May 31, 2005                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |
| /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom                              |   |
| Dirk A. Sodestrom                                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                                      |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                      |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2









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 CPI International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 2, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Joel A. Littman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.






/s/
      JOEL A. LITTMANJoel
      A. LittmanChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      11, 2009
# C_2008079EN.01001301.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 24 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles and Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias

(Case C-570/07)

(2008/C 79/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez

Applicants:

Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias, Federación Empresarial de Farmacéuticos Españoles and Plataforma para la Libre Apertura de Farmacias

Defendants:

Question referred

Should Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Decree 72/2001 dated 19 July of the Principality of Asturias regulating pharmacies and pharmaceutical dispensaries, and Sections 4, 6 and 7 of the Annex thereto, be considered to be in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty?

---
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 on Form 10-Q of National Patent
Development Corporation (the "Company") for the third quarter ended September
30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: December 23, 2004





Jerome I. Feldman                                    Scott N. Greenberg
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer