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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ELECTROSCOPE, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE STATEMENTS OF
OPERATION AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,340,591
<SECURITIES>                                 2,380,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  152,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,500
<INVENTORY>                                    622,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,585,766
<PP&E>                                         616,681
<DEPRECIATION>                               (339,852)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,026,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,379
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,941,317
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,026,652
<SALES>                                        907,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               907,274
<CGS>                                          906,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,045,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (302,421)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,742,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,742,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,742,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)
        

</TABLE>
David W. THOMPSON v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; PRLRAP, Inc.; Nationwide Trustee Services, Inc.; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.; Wendy B. Cole; and Matressa R. Morris.

No. 317P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

David W. Thompson, for Thompson, David W.

Brian M. Rowlson, Charlotte, for Bank of America, N.A., et al.

Julia B. Hartley, Charlotte, for Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 8th of September 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
Shapemasters, Inc. v. Angelo Accetturo, Wilderness Trail Development Corporation, and Wilderness Trail Holdings, LLC

No. 31P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Gerald R. McKinney, Attorney at Law, Newland, for Accetturo, Angelo, et al.

Paul A. Fanning, Attorney at Law, Winterville, Norman J. Leonard, Attorney at Law, Asheville, J. Harold Seagle, Attorney at Law, Fletcher, for Shapemasters, Inc.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of February 2016 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. v. NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, et al.

No. 101PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 15, 2014.

Reed Hollander, Raleigh, Christopher A. Mohr, for LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for NC Administrative Office of the Courts, et al.

Hugh Stevens, for the News and Observer Publishing Co., et al.

William Jerad Rissler, for Consumer Data Industry Association.

Phillip Absolom Harris, Jr., Joseph S. Dowdy, for Associate Professor Ryan Thornburg.

**Opinion**

The motion by The News and Observer Publishing Company, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc., Time-Warner Entertainment-Advance Newhouse Partnership; DTH Media Corp., and the North Carolina Press Foundation, Inc. to file a brief supporting plaintiff-appellants is allowed.

The motion by The News and Observer Publishing Company, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc., Time-Warner Entertainment-Advance Newhouse Partnership; DTH Media Corp., and the North Carolina Press Foundation, Inc. to participate in oral argument is allowed as follows:

Pursuant to Rule 30 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, petitioner-appellants have a total of thirty minutes in which to present their oral argument. Petitioner-appellants may, but are not compelled to and are under no duty to, cede a portion of those thirty minutes to The News and Observer Publishing Company, Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc., Time-Warner Entertainment-Advance Newhouse Partnership; DTH Media Corp., and the North Carolina Press Foundation, Inc. However, If petitioner-appellants and amici reach an agreement to share time, they together will have a total of thirty minutes of oral argument.

> "Motion Spec Order by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of October 2014."
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of MetaCreations Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-3070,
333-17209, 333-20939, 333-26557, 333-28403, and 333-67223) of our report dated
January 28, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of MetaCreations Corporation as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
Woodland Hills, California
March 29, 1999
 
                                       64
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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Grant King, 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:





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





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





Dated:
      February 19, 2008




/s/
                Grant KingGrant
                KingChief
                Executive Officer
**Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v AEE**

**(Case T-331/06)**

Public service contracts – EEA tendering procedure – Provision of information technology consultancy services – Rejection of the tender – Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Court – Award criteria set out in the tender specifications – Sub‐criteria – Manifest error of assessment – Duty to state reasons

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measures adopted by the European
Environment Agency (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 31-32, 34-35, 38-39)*

2.                     *Community law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Applicability to measures adopted by agencies established
on the basis of secondary law producing legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (see paras 33, 37)*

3.                     *European Communities' public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria – Obligation of prior definition
– Obligation to comply with the principles of equal treatment and transparency – Scope (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts
89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138(3)) (see paras 59-61)*

4.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision in a procedure for the award of a public service
contract not to accept a tender – Assessment having regard to information at the disposal of the applicant at the time of
the bringing of the action (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002,
Art. 149) (see paras 120-123)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of the decision of the EEA of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006 S 118‐125101) and to award the public contract to other tenderers. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.         Dismisses the action;

2.         Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1529, -1555 

(Opposition Nos. 91/122,072; 91/122,224; 91/122,193; 

91/122,450; 91/122,712; and 91/150,237) 

FIRST NIAGARA INSURANCE BROKERS, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., 

Cross-Appellant. 

Paul M. Fakler, Moses & Singer LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

appellant. With him on the brief were Martin Schwimmer and Amanda J. Schaffer. 

Paul I. Perlman, Hodgson Russ LLP, of Buffalo, New York, argued for crossappellant. With him on the brief were Edwin T. Bean, Jr. and Ivan E. Lee. 

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office 

 Trademark Trial & Appeals Board 

 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1529, -1555 

(Opposition Nos. 91/122, 072; 91/122,224; 91/122,193; 

91/122,450; 91/122,712; and 91/150,237) 

FIRST NIAGARA INSURANCE BROKERS, INC, 

Appellant, 

v. 

FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., 

Cross-Appellant. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (RADER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and DYK, 

Circuit Judge). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _September 9, 2008_ / s / Jan Horbaly

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TAMIR HAMMETT,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION 

AND PAROLE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 299 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐292/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public procurement – Directive 2004/18/EC – Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts – Incorrect or incomplete transposition – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249, third para., EC; Council Directive 2004/18)
(see paras 68-70, 120, 122)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 100, 155, 166)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose or to transpose completely and/or correctly Article 1(2)(b), in conjunction with Annex I; the second sentence of Article 9(1); Article 9(8)(a)(i) and (iii); Article 23(2); Article 30(2) to (4); Article 31(1)(c); Article 38(1); point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 43; the second subparagraph of Article 44(2); Article 44(3) and (4); the first paragraph of Article 46; Article 48(2)(f); points (d) and (e) of the second subparagraph of Article 55(1); Article 55(3); the second and third subparagraphs of Article 67(2); the first paragraph of point (a) of Article 68; Article 72, and Article 74(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Franco, Sr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information contained in such Annual Report of DARA
BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



By:

/s/ Richard A. Franco, Sr.Name:

Richard A. Franco, Sr.Title:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 31, 2009


I, Ann A. Rosar, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that
information contained in such Annual Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



By:

/s/ Ann A. RosarName:

Ann A. RosarTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 31, 2009
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135272 & (18) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135272 

 COA: 280100 

Kent CC: 04-005983-FH 

STEVEN MARK HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of April 23, 2008, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the amended judgment of sentence entered on September 6, 2006, 

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court, and direct that court to reinstate the 

original judgment of sentence entered on June 14, 2006. As the prosecution concedes, 

when the defendant was originally sentenced in this case, he had been discharged from 

parole by the Michigan Department of Corrections, such that the original judgment of 

sentence was valid. As the prosecution also concedes, the Kent Circuit Court therefore 

did not have the authority to later modify that valid original judgment of sentence. See 

MCR 6.429(A)(1); People v Miles, 454 Mich 90, 96 (1997). In all other respects, leave 

to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARCUS ALLEN MONSON,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00133-CR

Appeal from the

416th Judicial District Court

of Collin County, Texas 

(TC# 416-81371-06)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon on January 9,

2008. He was sentenced by the trial court to 3 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division

of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice the same day. Appellant filed a timely notice of

appeal. He has since decided that he does not wish to prosecute this appeal. Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed.

On May 21, 2008, this Court ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine

whether Appellant desired to prosecute this appeal, and if so, whether he was entitled to

appointed counsel on appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3(a)(2). The hearing was held on June 6,

2008. Appellant testified that he had discussed the matter with his attorney and that he no longer

wished to pursue this appeal. The trial court entered findings of fact further indicating

Appellant’s desire to dismiss the appeal on June 23, 2008.

Although no written motion has been filed in compliance with TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a), we

believe that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case in accordance
-2-

with TEX.R.APP.P. 2. We have not yet issued a decision in this case. Therefore, based on

Appellant’s testimony and the trial court’s findings of fact, we dismiss the appeal.

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


      Each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies that this Quarterly  Report on
      Form 10-Q complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained
      in such report fairly represents,  in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.


 May 14, 2008                            May 14, 2008


/s/ Jeffrey L. Minch                    /s/ Richard S. Chilinski
Jeffrey L. Minch                        Richard S. Chilinski,
President and Chief Executive Officer   Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

JASPER HARRIS, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0365-08-2 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND 

 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. 

 VIRGINIA INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Margaret P. Spencer, Judge 

 (Jasper Harris, Jr., pro se, on brief). 

 (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Peay, 

Assistant Attorney General; Thomas W. Nesbitt, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee Virginia Employment Commission. 

 No brief for appellee Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Virginia 

Industries for the Blind. 

 Jasper Harris, Jr. appeals a decision of the circuit court affirming the Virginia Employment 

Commission’s (VEC) decision finding that Harris is disqualified from receiving unemployment 

compensation benefits effective June 5, 2005, pursuant to Code § 60.2-618(2), because his 

employer, Virginia Industries for the Blind, discharged him for misconduct connected with his 

work. We have reviewed the record, the opinions of the appeals examiner and the VEC, and the 

circuit court’s February 20, 2008 final order, and find that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the appeals examiner’s opinion, as adopted by 

the VEC, along with its additional findings, in its opinion, and as affirmed by the circuit court in 

its final order dismissing Harris’s petition for judicial review of the VEC’s decision. See Harris 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

v. Commonwealth, Commission Decision UI-0510629 (Aug. 18, 2005); Harris v. 

Commonwealth, Commission Decision 76627-C (June 21, 2006); Harris v. Virginia 

Employment Comm’n, Case No. 706CL060004750-00 (Feb. 20, 2008). We dispense with oral 

argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 1

 In light of our summary affirmance of the circuit court’s decision, we deny the VEC’s 

motion to dismiss.