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
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,917
<SECURITIES>                                    16,449
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,658
<PP&E>                                           5,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,440
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,622
<SALES>                                         47,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,122
<CGS>                                           17,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,564
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
In re: David L. Smith

No. 580P05-14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

David Lee Smith, Pro Per.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney Generals, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of NC.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 7th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


        
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (file nos. 33-82976 and 33-95138) and in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (file no. 333-05379) of our report, dated February 21,
1997, except for Note 2 dated March 24, 1997, with respect to the financial
statements appearing on page F-2 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-1.     


                                                     McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

    
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 3, 1997
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1412

ROBERT E. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LENOIR COUNTY; KINSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRESTON C. ELLIS, JR., Individually and officer; C. SCOTT JACKSON, Individually and as officer; JOHN DOES, Individually; JOHN DOES; JANE DOES, Individually; JANE DOES; CARLTON NEIL FLOWERS, Individually; CARLTON NEIL FLOWERS, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-140-4-H-2) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 24, 1998 Before HAMILTON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III, G. Christopher Olson, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rudolph Alexander Ashton, III, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL & ASHTON, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights complaint asserting violations under 42U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (1994) and North Carolina’s constitution. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Anderson v. Lenoir County , No. CA-97- 140-4-H-2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 1998). 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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, James S.J. Manuso, 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 SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SuperGen, Inc.

Dated:
March 17, 2008

| |  |        |  |                                      
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | By:    |  | /s/JAMES S.J. MANUSO                 
| |  | Name:  |  | James S.J. Manuso                    
| |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

I,
Michael Molkentin, 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
SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

Dated:
March 17, 2008

| |  |        |  |                        
| |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
| |  | By:    |  | /s/MICHAEL MOLKENTIN   
| |  | Name:  |  | Michael Molkentin      
| |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7926
NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN; M. M. WILLIAMS, the Chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission; JANE DOE, Parole Commissioner, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-3622-L) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 27, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas Warner Jones, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabi lity. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jones has not made the requisite showing. SeeJones v. Warden , No. CA-02-3622-L (D. Md. filed Dec. 6, 2002; entered Dec. 10, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    CANNONDALE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER-SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      SEPTEMBER 28,     September 30,
                                                           1996               1995
                                                           ----               ----
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>  
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Average shares outstanding .............................   8,612             7,182

Net effect of options-
based on the treasury stock method .....................     440               386
                                                          ------            ------

Weighted average number of common shares
and equivalents outstanding during the period ..........   9,052             7,568
                                                          ------            ------

Income applicable to common shares and
    equivalents ........................................  $  489            $  194
                                                          ======            ======

Net income per share ...................................  $  .05            $  .03
                                                          ======            ======


FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION:

Average shares outstanding .............................   8,612             7,182

Net effect of options-
based on the treasury stock method .....................     523               386
                                                          ------            ------

Weighted average number of common shares
and equivalents outstanding during the period ..........   9,135             7,568
                                                          ------            ------

Income applicable to common shares and
    equivalents ........................................  $  489            $  194
                                                          ======            ======

Net income per share ...................................  $  .05            $  .03
                                                          ======            ======
</TABLE>
# C_2008183EN.01003101.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/31

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 May 2008 — Braun-Neumann v Parliament

(Case F-79/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Survivor's pension - Payment of 50 % owing to the existence of another surviving spouse - Inadmissibility - Complaint out of time - Absolute bar to proceeding - Raised by the Civil Service Tribunal of its own motion - Application ratione temporis of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

ratione temporis

(2008/C 183/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. F. De Wachter, K. Zejdová)

Defendant:

Re:

Claim for full payment of the survivor's pension.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 31.

1

---
# C_2011347EN.01002701.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2011 — France v Commission

(Case T-139/06) (1)

1

(Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice finding that there has been failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Adoption, by the Member State, of certain measures - Request for payment - Competence of the Commission - Jurisdiction of the General Court)

2011/C 347/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri and subsequently, E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Banks and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer, T. Harris and C. Murrell, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 659 Final of 1 March 2006 seeking payment of the periodic penalty payments due pursuant to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263

Commission

France

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
IN RE D.R.

No. COA08-542.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (05J253).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
NIES v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 29, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

*11Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Envirnmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Ahoskie, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, For County of Dare, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2016 by County of Dare, et al. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of July 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
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 Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jimmy B. Holton, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Jimmy B. Holton



Jimmy B. Holton

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

November 16, 2005
March20, 2013

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

Referenceis made to the Annual Information Form to be included in the Annual Report onForm 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. to be filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

Ihereby consent to (i) the references to my name in the 40-F as an author of thereport entitled “Nevsun Resources Limited, Bisha Polymetallic OperationEritrea, Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report”, dated January 1, 2011, and as anauthor of the report entitled “Bisha Polymetallic Operation, Eritrea, Africa,NI 43-101 Technical Report” dated August 31, 2012, and (ii) to the use of thereports in the 40-F.

***/s/ Jay  Melnyk***_________________________Jay Melnyk, P.Eng. AGP Mining Consultants, Inc.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136569 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: 136569 

 COA: 276246 

Oakland CC: 2006-208898-FC 

ADRIAN WENDELL NICHOLS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 15, 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. 

t0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2007020EN.01002101.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/21

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Groep v Commission

(Case T-351/06)

(2007/C 20/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Dura Vermeer Groep NV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Groep is concerned; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Groep is concerned; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its application the claimant first submits that the Commission has breached Article 81(1) EC and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the claimant's view, the Commission's analysis is incorrect with regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance on parent company liability for an alleged breach by subsidiaries. The Commission for that reason imposed an excessively strict test on the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant alleges, the Commission misrepresented the factual description of the applicable relationships within the Dura Vermeer concern. The Commission therefore failed to demonstrate that the claimant exercised a determining influence over the conduct of Vermeer Infrastructuur BV.

Second, the claimant alleges infringement of the essential procedural requirements set out in Article 253 EC and of the principle that reasons must be given.

---