alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137288 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

In re AARON DOUGLAS SMITH, CHELSEA 

MARIE SMITH, and JULIE ANN SMITH,

Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 137288 

 COA: 283285 

Oakland CC Family Division:

05-712404-NA 

MELANIE ANN SMITH,

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

WAYNE DOUGLAS SMITH, JR.,

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0923 

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 26, 2008 

Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Quarter Ended                  Year Ended
                                                   December 25,                 December 25,
                                          -------------------------  -------------------------
                                               1999          1998         1999          1998
                                               ----          ----         ----          ----
<S>                                      <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Net Income                               $6,945,000    $9,224,000    $23,983,000   $33,692,000

Shares used to compute
   earnings per share - Basic            19,299,534    19,283,462     19,295,286    19,279,028

Earnings Per Share - Basic                    $0.36         $0.48          $1.24         $1.75

Shares used to compute
   earnings per share including
   common stock equivalents - Diluted    19,375,969    19,401,626     19,392,082    19,405,569

Earnings Per Share - Diluted                  $0.36         $0.48          $1.24         $1.74

</TABLE>
# C_2009256EN.01002502.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2009 — Wella v OHIM (TAME IT)

(Case T-471/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - International registration - Request for territorial extension of protection - Word mark TAME IT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2009/C 256/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wella AG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B. Klingberg and K. Sandberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 October 2007 (Case R 713/2007-2), relating to a territorial extension, to the European Community, of the protection in respect of the international registration of the word mark TAME IT

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wella AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wella AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SouthCrest
      Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,
      2007 (the “ Periodic Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United
      States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
      Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 14, 2007





/s/
                Larry T. KuglarLarry T. Kuglar
              Chief
                Executive Officer
State v. Sandra Meshell Brice

244P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2016

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Brice, Sandra Meshell.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nancy D. Hardison, Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney Generals, David Learner, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2016."
In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Charles W. PICKELSIMER, Jr.

Appealed By: The Ann B. Pickelsimer Family Trust, Lynn P. Williams, Charles W. Pickelsimer, III, and Whitney A. Butterworth n/k/a Whitney Rivera, Caveators-Appellants.

No. 328P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, for The Ann B. Pickelsimer Family Trust, et al.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for The Ann B. Pickelsimer Family Trust, et al.

*291Chip Holmes, Attorney at Law, for Brevard College.

Robert Wishart, Charlotte, for McCrary, Betty.

Michael K. Pratt, Brevard, for Shelter Available for Family Emergency (SAFE), Inc.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for Albertson, David.

Philip S. Anderson, Asheville.

Phillip T. Jackson, Marion, for Transylvania Community Hospital.

June K. Allison, Charlotte, for McCrary, Betty.

Jessica C. Dixon, Charlotte.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of September 2015 by Caveators 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 15th of December 2015."
**Exhibit 99.30****CONSENT OF H. BURGESS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following documents, which arebeing filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission: 1. The technical report dated January 2003 entitled “Technical Report on Mining &Processing Assets of Peak Gold Mines, in New South Wales, Australia & Minera AlumbreraLimited in Argentina” (the “Alumbrera Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Alumbrera Report,and the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008         /s/ Harry Burgess   Name:  Harry Burgess   Title:  Vice President
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant**


**to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of GigaBeam
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), the undersigned as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby,
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------










/s/
      Louis
      S. Slaughter


Name:
      Louis S. Slaughter


Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      19, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Peter Schieffelin NYBERG.

No. COA15-58.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error in Part; Reversed and Remanded in Part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS J. MACWILLIAMS, a/k/a Greg, a/k/a Corporal George,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-6027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS J. MACWILLIAMS, Greg, Corporal George,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00059-IMK-JSK-1; 1:06-cr-00059-01-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 28, 2008
- 2 -

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas J. MacWilliams, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas J. MacWilliams appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to compel the release of evidence. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States

v. MacWilliams, Nos. 1:06-cr-00059-IMK-JSK-1; 1:06-cr-00059-01-IMKJSK (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 15, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Petty, AtLee and Senior Judge Clements 

LONNIE HODGES 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1507-15-1 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 29, 2016 

VIRGINIA INTERNATIONAL TERMINALS AND 

 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Lonnie Hodges, pro se, on brief). 

 (R. John Barrett; Megan B. Caramore; Vandeventer Black LLP, on 

brief, for appellees. 

 *

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

 Lonnie Hodges appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

dismissing his case for failure to file a timely request for review. On November 25, 2015, 

appellant filed a pleading indicating his appeal of and dissatisfaction with the Commission’s 

findings in his case. On February 4, 2016, this Court directed appellant to file an amended 

opening brief to comply with Rules 5A:4(b), 5A:4(d), 5A:20(c), 5A:20(d), 5A:20(e), and 

5A:20(h). Appellant failed to submit replacement pleadings in compliance with the Rules of 

Court. Appellant’s pleading does not include proper assignments of error, in violation of Rule 

5A:20(c), or a statement of facts, in violation of Rule 5A:20(d). Likewise, the pleading does not 

include the applicable standard of review for any assignments of error as required under Rule 

5A:20(e). Appellant did not satisfy Rule 5A:20(h), which requires that the certificate of the brief 

indicate whether oral argument is waived and that a copy of the brief has been provided to 

opposing counsel. 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

 This Court “will not search the record for errors in order to interpret the appellant’s 

contention and correct deficiencies in a brief.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 

415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992). Nor is it this Court’s “function to comb through the record . . . in 

order to ferret-out for ourselves the validity of [appellant’s] claims.” Fitzgerald v. Bass, 6 

Va. App. 38, 56 n.7, 366 S.E.2d 615, 625 n.7 (1988) (en banc). “Even pro se litigants must 

comply with the rules of court.” Francis v. Francis, 30 Va. App. 584, 591, 518 S.E.2d 842, 846 

(1999). 

 We find that appellant’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20 is significant. See Jay v. 

Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 311, 317 (2008) (“the Court of Appeals should 

. . . consider whether any failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of [the Rules of Court] is 

insignificant . . .”); cf. Rules 5A:1(a) (authorizing dismissal of appeal or “such other penalty” 

deemed appropriate); 5A:26 (authorizing additional dismissal remedy in appropriate cases). 

Accordingly, for all of these reasons, we cannot consider appellant’s appeal and we summarily 

affirm the Commission’s rulings.1

 See Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed. 

 1

 On December 8, 2015, appellees filed a motion to dismiss. Upon consideration thereof, 

the motion to dismiss is denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,008

EX PARTE DANA LYNN ATTAWAY, AKA DANA LYNN RAGSDALE,

Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 0619072A IN THE 8 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HOPKINS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was charged in a single indictment

with two counts of sexual assault of a child, two counts of indecency with a child by contact, and two

counts of indecency with a child by exposure. She pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual assault of

a child, and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for each count. She did not appeal her

conviction. 
In this writ Applicant contends that she pleaded guilty to offenses more serious than those

with which she was charged. The trial court finds that Applicant pleaded guilty in two counts of the

indictment to offenses more serious than those with which she was charged. Applicant is entitled

to relief. Ex parte Huerta, 692 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief is granted. Because Applicant’s conviction on all six counts is the result of a plea

bargain, the entire conviction must be set aside. Therefore, the judgment in Cause No. 0619072A

in the 8th Judicial District Court of Hopkins County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the

Sheriff of Hopkins County to answer the charges against her.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: October 1, 2008

Do Not Publish
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

139651

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139651 COA: 283677 Wayne CC: 07-009823-FC ROBERT REED, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 11, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kedron Devon LYONS.

No. COA15-964.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
Exhibit 32.1


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

     I,  Linda  Putback-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 September 30, 2006 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/ Linda Putback-Bean
                         --------------------------
                         Linda Putback-Bean
                         Chief Executive Officer

December 5, 2006

<PAGE>
**Judgment of the General Court (single judge) of 18 March 2010 – KEK Diavlos v Commission**

**(Case T-190/07)**

Financial assistance for the European citizen information programme (Prince) – Project concerning preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools – Decision ordering reimbursement of the advance paid – Duty to state reasons – Error of assessment

Actions for annulment – Grounds – Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons – Error of assessment (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 36-39, 48, 50-52, 66-67, 70, 74, 77)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 465 Final of 23 February 2006 ordering the reimbursement of the advance, together with interest, paid under a contract for financial assistance, concluded under the Prince programme, for an operation entitled ‘The EURO – its genuine and essential impact on school children’ (Eurogenesis), concerning preparation for the introduction of the euro in schools. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders KEK Diavlos to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.16

                                THE CRONOS GROUP

                          AMENDMENT, DATED JUNE 1, 2001

                                       TO

                             1999 STOCK OPTION PLAN

                           The 1999 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") of The Cronos
         Group (the "Company") was adopted and approved by the shareholders of
         the Company at the annual meeting held January 13, 2000. At the annual
         meeting of the shareholders of the Company held June 1, 2001, the
         shareholders approved an amendment to the third sentence of Section
         4(a) of the Plan to read, in its entirety, as follows:

                           "The aggregate number of Shares that may be covered
                  by Options granted to any one individual during the term of
                  the Plan shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand (100,000)."

                           After amendment, Section 4 of the Plan reads, in its
         entirety, as follows:

         "SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN

                           (a) The stock offered under the Plan shall be Shares
                  of Common Stock and may be unissued Shares or Shares now held
                  or subsequently acquired by the Company as treasury Shares, as
                  the Board may from time to time determine. Subject to
                  adjustment as provided herein, the aggregate number of Shares
                  that may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed Five
                  Hundred Thousand (500,000). The aggregate number of Shares
                  that may be covered by Options granted to any one individual
                  during the term of the Plan shall not exceed One Hundred
                  Thousand (100,000).

                           (b) Any Shares subject to an Option granted under the
                  Plan that are not purchased thereunder shall again be
                  available for the granting of Options under the Plan."



                                                                             E23
<PAGE>

                                  CERTIFICATION

                           The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly
         elected and acting Chief Executive Officer of The Cronos Group, a
         societe anonyme holding organized and existing under the Grand Duchy of
         Luxembourg (the "Company"), and that the statements made in the
         foregoing Amendment, dated June 1, 2001, to the Company's 1999 Stock
         Option Plan are true.

                           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
         Certificate as of February 11, 2002.

                                                     /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
                                                              Dennis J Tietz



                                                                             E24
In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Richard Dixon PEACOCK Date of Death: 12/19/2013

No. 276P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Regan H. Rozier, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Peacock, Bernadine.

G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for K.A.P. (Minor)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of July 2016 by Respondent 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 22nd of September 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1435

TIMOTHY R. MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00207-HEH)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy R. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III,

TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy R. Martin appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award granted to Scott

& Stringfellow, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Martin’s motion

to supplement his reply brief, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Martin v. Scott & Stringfellow, Inc., No.

3:06-cv-00207-HEH (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 13, entered Mar. 14, 2008).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00316-CR

Kelly Dawn Kunkel

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 9

of Tarrant County (1348604)

October 1, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth