alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Willowmere Community Association, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, and Nottingham Owners Association, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation v. City of Charlotte, a North Carolina body politic and corporate, and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation

No. 419PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Kenneth T. Davies, Attorney at Law, Madeline J. Trilling, Attorney at Law, for Willomere Community Association, Inc., et al.

Anthony T. Lathrop, Attorney at Law, Glenn E. Ketner, III, Attorney at Law, Kara N. Bitar, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, Inc.

Terrie V. Hagler-Gray, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Thomas E. Powers, III, Assistant City Attorney, for City of Charlotte.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of November 2016 by Plaintiffs 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:

*215"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# CE2004088EN.01072801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/728 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/728

---

(2004/C 88 E/0748)

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to the answer to Written Question P-2323/03 by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(
  ‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 65 E of 13 March 2004
  )

‘Official Journal of the European Union’ C 65 E of 13 March 2004

On page 131, point 2. (b) should read as follows:

| 2. (b) | What positions have they held since?
  One of the two management level officials was appointed Head of Unit in DG PRESS. The other, after spending a short period of time in DG ADMIN as Adviser, was appointed Head of Unit in DG ADMIN. |
| --- | --- |

2. (b)

What positions have they held since?

One of the two management level officials was appointed Head of Unit in DG PRESS. The other, after spending a short period of time in DG ADMIN as Adviser, was appointed Head of Unit in DG ADMIN.

---
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-12-2008

Lombardo v. Comm of PA Welfare

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 06-4628

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Lombardo v. Comm of PA Welfare" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 444.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/444
PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 06-4628

____________

MICHAEL A. LOMBARDO

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

WELFARE; ESTELLE RICHMAN, Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare, in

her official capacity,

Appellants

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(No. 06-cv-00732)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Nealon

Argued October 24, 2007

Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

____________

(Filed: August 25, 2008)

___________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

____________

It has come to the attention of the Court that Pennsylvania’s Sectretary of Public
Welfare was incorrectly named in the body of the opinion. At the direction of the Court

is it hereby O R D E R E D that the opinion is hereby amended to correctly identify the

Secretary as Estelle Richman on pages 2 and 3 of the opinion.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: September 12, 2008
----

----

**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**, **ThomasS. Whelan, Chief Financial 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/ *Thomas S. Whelan*** |
|--------|----------------------------|

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

|   | ****Thomas S. Whelan****Chief Financial Officer** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|

----
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (First Chamber)

25 January 2008

Case F-80/06

**Tineke Duyster**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Parental leave – Application to withdraw parental leave – Lis pendens – Manifest inadmissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mrs Duyster seeks, in particular, annulment of the Commission’s decision
of 11 May 2006 rejecting her complaint against the Commission’s decision of 22 December 2005 declaring inadmissible her request
of 6 December 2005 seeking to end her parental leave with retroactive effect from 8 November 2004.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Procedure – Admissibility of pleadings – Assessment as at the time when the pleading is submitted*

*(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 114)*

2.      *Procedure – Objection of lis pendens*

1.      Just as the admissibility of an action must be assessed at the time when it is brought, the admissibility of other pleadings,
such as a plea of inadmissibility, must be assessed at the time when they are submitted. Such an interpretation ensures respect
for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations .

(see para. 42)

See:

50/84 *Bensider and Others* v *Commission* [1984] ECR 3991, para. 8

T-236/00 R II *Stauner and Others* v *Parliament and Commission* [2001] ECR II‐2943, para. 49; T-219/01 *Commerzbank* v *Commission* [2003] ECR II‐2843, para. 61

2.      An action which is between the same parties and has the same purpose on the basis of the same submissions as an action brought
previously must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see para. 52)

See:

172/83 and 226/83 *Hoogovens Groep* v *Commission* [1985] ECR 2831, para. 9; 358/85 and 51/86 *France* v *Parliament* [1988] ECR 4821, para. 12

judgment of 14 June 2007 in T-68/07 *Landtag Schleswig-Holstein* v *Commission*, not published in the ECR, para. 16
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3987 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3987

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
     any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2014

 Mr. Farenthold (for himself, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Sessions) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
     any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Exemptions for American 
Medalists Act of 2014'' or the ``TEAM Act''.

SEC. 2. OLYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC PRIZE MONEY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 74 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Exception for Olympic Medals and Prizes.--Gross income shall 
not include the value of any medal awarded in, or any prize money 
received from the United States Olympic Committee on account of, 
competition in the Olympic Games.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to prizes and awards received after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
Christy Newell, Plaintiff, v. Clyde S. Newell, III, Defendant.

No. COA15-1016

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,148,773
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,516,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,879)
<INVENTORY>                                  4,073,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,369,454
<PP&E>                                       1,512,965
<DEPRECIATION>                               (717,572)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,551,028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,312,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,100
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,204,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,551,028
<SALES>                                      3,583,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,823,435
<CGS>                                        1,892,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,383,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,457,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (548,551)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (909,172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (909,172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
        

</TABLE>
1617.

#### Law *v.*The State.

Accusation of cruelty to animal, from city court of Waynesboro —Judge Jobnston. December 22, 1908.

Submitted January 26,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*Brinson & Davis,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. 8. Burney, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The evidence, though circumstantial, is legally sufficient to support the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*
Timothy S. Boyd v. Gregory M. Rekuc, M.D. and Raleigh Adult Medicine, P.A.

No. 140P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Patricia P. Shields, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Daniel M. Gaylord, Attorney at Law, Cary, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Boyd, Timothy S.

Elizabeth P. McCullough, Attorney at Law, Kelly Street Brown, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Rekuc, Gregory M. (M.D.), et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of April 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 18th of August 2016."
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 March
31, 2008 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


(Principal
Executive Officer)





June 20,
2008
STATE v. Antwan ANTHONY

324A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 18, 2016

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Anthony, Antwan.

Kimberly Robb, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of October 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of October 2016."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2016 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – allsafe Jungfalk v OHIM (ALLSAFE)**

**(Case T-343/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark ALLSAFE – Absolute grounds for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 25, 27, 37, 40)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 July 2007 (Case R 454/2006-4) concerning the registration of the word sign ALLSAFE as a community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ALLSAFE for goods and services in Classes 6, 12, 22, 35, 39 and 42 – Application No 2940534 |
| Decision of the Examiner : | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Ordres allsafe Jungfalk GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Mr. Sidney H. Davis Jr.

Touchstone Bernays Johnston Beall & Smith, LLP

4700 Renaissance Tower

1201 Elm St.

Dallas, TX 75270

Mr. Charles L. Perry

Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P.

1717 Main Street, Suite 3700

Dallas, TX 75201

RE:Case Number:  07-0140

Court of Appeals Number:  05-04-01641-CV

Trial Court Number:  02-05001-C

Style:TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

CELLULAR ONE GROUP

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0140Page 1**
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3844 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require cost or price to the 

Federal Government be given at least equal importance as technical 

or other criteria in evaluating competitive proposals for defense contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2014 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require cost or 

price to the Federal Government be given at least equal 

importance as technical or other criteria in evaluating 

competitive proposals for defense contracts. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3844 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT COST OR PRICE TO THE 

2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE GIVEN AT LEAST 

3 EQUAL IMPORTANCE AS TECHNICAL OR 

4 OTHER CRITERIA IN EVALUATING COMPETI5 TIVE PROPOSALS FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTS. 

6 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘proposals; and’’ at the end of clause (ii) and 

9 all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and 

10 inserting the following: ‘‘proposals and that must be as11 signed importance at least equal to all evaluation factors 

12 other than cost or price when combined.’’. 

13 (b) WAIVER.—Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is fur14 ther amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

15 the following: 

16 ‘‘(B) The requirement of subparagraph 

17 (A)(ii) relating to assigning at least equal im18 portance to evaluation factors of cost or price 

19 may be waived by the head of the agency.’’. 

20 (c) REPORT.—Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is fur21 ther amended by adding at the end the following new sub22 paragraph: 

23 ‘‘(C) Not later than 180 days after the end 

24 of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense 

25 shall submit to Congress, and post on a publicly 

26 available website of the Department of Defense, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 3844 IH

1 a report containing a list of each waiver issued 

2 by the head of an agency under subparagraph 

3 (B) during the preceding fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
of Linda's Diversified  Holdings Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 33-76422),  Form S-3
(File No. 333-08711), Form S-8 (File No. 333-14095), and Form S-8 (File No. 333-
14099)  of  our  report  dated  March  6,  1997  on the  consolidated  financial
statements of Linda's Diversified  Holdings Inc. and Subsidiaries,  which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


                              /s/ ROTHSTEIN, KASS & COMPANY, P.C.


Roseland, New Jersey
April 15, 1997
STATE v. Tony Robert JONES

669P03-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Tony Robert Jones, Pro Per.

Ms. Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Tom Horner, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of November 2016 by Defendant for Petition to Show Just Cause Under Common Law:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                           8,342
<SECURITIES>                                    14,064
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (566)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,374
<PP&E>                                          13,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,681)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,386
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,956
<SALES>                                         12,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,946
<CGS>                                            3,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    626
<INCOME-TAX>                                       231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                395
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009019EN.01003602.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2008 — Commission v Northumbrian Water

(Case T-334/06) (1)

1

(2009/C 19/69)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---