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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
HEALTHWORLD CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FORM 10K 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

          
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    6472
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            18889
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         30013
<PP&E>                                                    7642
<DEPRECIATION>                                            3199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           50871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    20479
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                    74
<OTHER-SE>                                               29127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             50871
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         63677
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            56875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (642)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           7444
<INCOME-TAX>                                              2976
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       4426
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                              4426
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0.58

        

</TABLE>
greatspt8ka1ex101_12110.htm





 




  





- 1 -











  







 




  





- 2 -











  




 





 




  





- 3 -











  




 





 




  





- 4 -











  




 





 




  





- 5 -











  




 





 




  





- 6 -











  




 





 


- 7 -
Exhibit 4.1


 


	 	 	WKN: A12UKR
	 	Innocoll AG	 
	 	 	ISIN: DE000A12UKR
	 	mit Sitz in Saal an der Donau	 
	 		Ordnungs-Nr.  001
	 	Globalurkunde	 










 


über bis zu [·]
auf den Namen der Citigroup Global Markets Deutschland AG, Frankfurt am Main, lautende Stammaktien in Form von Stückaktien


 


Aktiennummern 1 bis [·]


 


Die Anzahl der in dieser Globalurkunde verbrieften und
begebenen Aktien ergibt sich aus der aktuellen virtuellen Depotdokumentation der Clearstream Banking AG.


 


Diese Globalurkunde ist ausschließlich zur Verwahrung
bei der Clearstream Banking AG, Frankfurt am Main, bestimmt.


 


Zu dieser Globalurkunde wurde kein Globalgewinnanteilschein
ausgefertigt.


 


Die in dieser Globalurkunde verbrieften Aktien sind
ab dem 01. Januar 2014 gewinnberechtigt.


 


Regensburg, im
Juli 2014


 


Innocoll AG


 


	 	 	 
	Gordon Dunn	 	Jonathan Symonds
	Vorstand	 	Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats


 






    	 



    	 



    




 











Convenience Translation


 


	 	Innocoll AG	Security Identification 
	 	 	Number (WKN):
	 	 	A12UKR


 


ISIN: DE000A12UKR





 


with registered seat in Saal
an der Donau


 


Order number: 001


 


Global Share Certificate(1)


 


regarding up to [•] registered ordinary
shares with no par value in the name of Citigroup Global Markets Deutschland AG, Frankfurt am Main,


 


Share numbers: 1 through [•]


 


The number of shares which are evidenced and issued
through this global share certificate results from the current virtual custody documentation of Clearstream Banking AG.


 


This global share certificate is made exclusively for
custody by Clearstream Banking AG, Frankfurt am Main.


 


There is no global dividend coupon issued together with
this global share certificate.


  


The shares which are evidenced by this global share certificate
participate in the profits of the company starting from January 1, 2014.


 


Regensburg, in July 2014


 


Innocoll AG


 


		 	
	Gordon Dunn	 	Jonathan Symonds
	Member of the Management Board	 	Chairman of the Supervisory Board


 





 






(1) This convenience translation into the English language
is for information purposes only and is not a valid share certificate.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51389

Summary Calendar

MARTHA H. JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PETE GEREN,

Secretary of the Army,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 6:06-CV-242

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martha Jackson appeals a summary judgment entered on her claim of retaliation and on discrimination on account of race, sex, age, and religion. The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51389

district court entered a lengthy and convincing Memorandum Opinion and Order

explaining why Jackson’s suit has no merit. We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by that court.

As the district court explained, plaintiff alleges “fourteen factually [discrete] occasions where she claims her civil rights were violated.” Some of those

events, as the district court explained, do not constitute adverse employment

actions. One incidentSSa twelve-day suspensionSSis an adverse action but, as

the district court reasoned, there were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

One incident deserves special mention. Jackson asserts that a lieutenant

colonel uttered an extremely offensive and unacceptable racial epithet in reference to her. Although that conduct was reprehensible, Jackson has presented

no evidence that the lieutenant colonel in question had authority over the employment decisions that Jackson questions or that the remark was in any way

related to those employment actions. 

In sum, Jackson has made no showing that any ofthe myriad actions complained of resulted from discriminatory or retaliatory animus. The district court

has shown why summary judgment is amply justified.

AFFIRMED.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 10

- 00863

- CR Carolyn Boeck MARTINEZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 4 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 242570 Honorable Sarah Garrahan

- Moulder , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 29, 2010
DISMISSED
On December 10, 2010 , we abated this appeal and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the status of this appeal. We received findings and recommendations from the trial court on December 20, 2010, reflecting that appellant no longer wishes to pursue h er appeal and re commend ing that this c ourt dismiss the appeal. The c ourt, having considered the
docume nts on file and the trial court’ s findings and recommendations, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ordered t hat this ap peal is reinstated on the docket of04

- 10

- 00863

- CR

- 2

- this court and dismissed. See Bocanegra v. State , No. 13

- 98

- 312

- CR, 1999 WL 34973199 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Apr. 15, 1999, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (dismissing appeal after trial court found a ppellant no longer wishe d to pursue his appeal ).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
In the Matter of: B.M.A.

No. COA16-419

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 2-08-336-CV

 2-08-342-CV

 

IN RE OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR RELATORS

COMPANY, LLC AND OLSHAN FOUNDATION

REPAIR COMPANY OF DALLAS, LTD.

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relators’ petitions for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relators’ petitions for

writ of mandamus are denied. The stay of the trial court proceedings in cause

numbers 07-06-429 and 07-06-435 in the 271st District Court of Wise County,

Texas are hereby lifted.

Relators shall pay all costs of these original proceedings, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
2

DELIVERED: October 2, 2008
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the amended Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Hardie, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

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

2.

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





/s/ Peter Hardie

Peter Hardie

Chief Financial Officer



March 31, 2011
Sok Bun, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 3, 2016

**107*14ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 18, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Daniel Dewitt Hall be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hall shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

**108Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hall shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136758 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: 136758 

 COA: 277154 

Oakland CC: 2006-211772-FH 

ERIC EUAGEAN WARREN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 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. 

p0915 

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
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Douglas J. Hertha, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofSouthCrest Financial Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make 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 otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13(a)-15(e) and 15(d)-15(e))for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report, based on such evaluation;  c) Disclosed in the report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 15, 2004 By:  /s/ Douglas J. Hertha    Douglas J. Hertha    Chief Financial Officer
In the Matter of: A.M-M., M.M-M.

No. COA16-282

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
State of North Carolina v. Connie Prentice Reaves

No. COA16-92

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

VACATED AND REMANDED.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 30, 2014.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D13-2601

Lower Tribunal No. 12-47394

________________

Rosa Marin and Smart Cars and Trucks Corporation,

Appellants,

vs.

Obed Limonte, Frank De La Oliva and Exus Isuzu Parts,

Corporation,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beth Bloom,

Judge.

Jason M. Wandner, P.A., Jason M. Wandner, for appellants.

Claudio R. Cedrez Pellegrino, for appellees.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER, and LOGUE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

LOGUE, J.
Appellees, Obed Limonte, Frank De La Oliva, and Exus Isuzu Parts,

Corporation, move to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the final judgment.

For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion to dismiss.

On August 23, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of

appellees. On August 26, 2013, appellants, Rosa Marin and Smart Car and Trucks

Corporation, filed a motion for rehearing. On August 29, 2013, the trial court

entered a final judgment dismissing appellants’ claims with prejudice. The trial

court subsequently denied appellants’ motion for rehearing on September 25, 2013.

Appellants filed their notice of appeal on October 2, 2013, which indicates that

they are taking an appeal from the order granting summary judgment and

subsequent denial of rehearing. 

Appellees assert that the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing

a notice of appeal, because the motion was directed at a non-final, non-appealable

order granting summary judgment, and was therefore an “unauthorized” motion.

Where, as here, there is “no substantive difference between the rights adjudicated

in the order granting summary judgment (i.e., the interlocutory order) and the final

summary judgment . . . ‘there is no impediment to treating the motion for rehearing

as an authorized, premature motion, tolling the time for filing a notice of appeal.’”

Simpson v. Tarmac Am., LLC, 106 So. 3d 87, 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting

2
Bass v. Jones, 511 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). Accordingly, the motion to

dismiss is denied.

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2005-21872; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-26]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Norfolk, NE.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

0901 UTC, October 27, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43745). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on October 27, 2005. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Dated: Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 8, 2005.

Elizabeth S. Wallis, 

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 05-19201 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4027 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4027

To increase the statutory limit on the public debt and to require House 
 and Senate votes on constitutional amendments to balance the Federal 
            budget and to restrict new entitlement spending.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2014

 Mr. Crawford introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the statutory limit on the public debt and to require House 
 and Senate votes on constitutional amendments to balance the Federal 
            budget and to restrict new entitlement spending.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION.

    Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is 
amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such 
subsection and inserting ``$19,250,000,000,000''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL VOTES REQUIRED ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TO 
              BALANCE THE FEDERAL BUDGET AND TO RESTRICT NEW 
              ENTITLEMENT SPENDING.

    Within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the House 
of Representatives and the Senate shall each vote upon a proposed 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States entitled ``Joint 
resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States'' or entitled ``Joint resolution proposing an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States to restrict the 
power of Congress to enact legislation increasing any amount spent 
under entitlement programs or creating new entitlement programs''. If 
such vote fails to achieve a two-thirds majority in either House of 
Congress then there shall be a vote in that House of Congress on either 
such amendment within 90 days.
                                 <all>
```