alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, 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.  Date: September 14, 2016  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
DAVIS v. HULSING ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.

160A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 10, 2016

Charles G. Monnett, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Davis, Thomas A.E. (Jr.), et al.

Isaac N. Northup, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville, For Hulsing Hotels North Carolina, Inc., et al.

Isaac Northup, Attorney at Law.

Lori P. Jones, Attorney at Law, R. Frank Gray, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of October 2016 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of October 2016."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 15th day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2008022EN.01005602.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/56

---

Action brought on 23 October 2007 — Behmer v Parliament

(Case F-124/07)

(2008/C 22/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the applicant for 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament awarding two promotion points to the applicant for 2005;

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in 2006;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official at the European Parliament in grade AD 12, alleges above all the unlawfulness of the decisions of the appointing authority, firstly, to award the applicant two promotion points for 2005 and, secondly, not to promote him to grade AD 13 in 2006.

The applicant submits that there was a manifest error of assessment, breach of the duty to state reasons, breach of point I.6 of the implementing measures relating to the attribution of promotion points and promotion and breach of the general principles that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects and of equal treatment.

In particular, he submits that there is infringement of Article 45 and Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations, and puts forward pleas of illegality and of breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Finally, the applicant claims that he suffered discrimination because of his activities representing the staff, in breach of Article 1d and of Article 24b of the Staff Regulations, of the sixth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations and of Article 17 of the framework agreement of 12 July 1990 between the European Parliament and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the institution.

---
Exhibit
10.2


TERM
NOTE



	
  

 	
  

 
	
 $4,000,000

 	
 July 24, 2014

 



          FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, each of MGC DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation, and MEDICAL GRAPHICS CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation
(individually and collectively, the “Borrower”), jointly and severally,
promises to pay to the order of BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., a national banking
association (the “Bank”), at its main office in Minneapolis, Minnesota
or at such other place as may be designated in writing from time to time by the
Bank, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of
Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000), together with interest (as provided in that
certain Credit Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, as amended from time to time,
among the Borrower and the Bank (the “Credit Agreement”)) on the unpaid
principal balance hereof from the date hereof until this Note is fully paid.


          This
Note is payable as provided in the Credit Agreement. The Borrower may prepay at
any time and from time to time, all or any portion of the balance from time to
time remaining on this Note as provided in the Credit Agreement. 


          This
Note is the “Term Note” referred to in the Credit Agreement, is issued pursuant
to and is subject to the Credit Agreement which, among other things, provides
for acceleration of the maturity hereof upon the occurrence of an Event of
Default, as defined in the Credit Agreement, and is secured by the Security
Agreements and other Loan Documents referred to in the Credit Agreement.


          The
Borrower, jointly and severally, agrees to pay all costs of collection,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in the event this Note is not paid when
due. This Note is being delivered in, and shall be governed by, the laws of the
State of Minnesota. Presentment or other demand for payment, notice of dishonor
and protest are expressly waived.


	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 MGC DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By

 	
 /s/ Wesley
 W. Winnekins 



 
	
  

 	
 Its

 	
 Chief
 Financial Officer, Chief

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Operating
 Officer and Secretary

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 MEDICAL GRAPHICS CORPORATION

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
 By

 	
 /s/ Wesley
 W. Winnekins



 
	
  

 	
 Its

 	
 Chief
 Financial Officer, Chief

 
	
  

 	
  

 	
 Operating
 Officer and Secretary

 


52
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14 Certification**I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:1. I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K/A of The Cronos Group (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this amendment to annual report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis amendment to report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe Registrant and have:(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) disclosed in this amendment to report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the AuditCommittee of Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report information; and(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 27, 2007/s/ DENNIS J. TIETZDennis J. Tietz
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135919 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: 135919 

 COA: 282134 

Gogebic CC: 07-000021-FH 

EARL LEVI DIXON, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for expedited 

consideration as on leave granted in light of People v Muttscheler, 481 Mich 372 (2008). 

p0828 

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
State of North Carolina v. Anthony Searls, Defendant.

No. COA16-676

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 17, 2017

Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Ann Stone, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for the Defendant.

DILLON, Judge.

Anthony Searls ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of carrying a concealed handgun. The evidence at trial established that in November 2013, a police officer stopped a car that Defendant was driving because the car's license plate had been revoked. Defendant gave consent to the officer to search the car, and the officer discovered a handgun concealed under the driver's seat. Defendant did not have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Following his conviction, Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent Defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and *State v. Kinch* , 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed his own written arguments.

In accordance with *Anders* , we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therein. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we hold the Defendant received a fair trial, free from error.

NO ERROR.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge CALABRIA concur.
Robert E. King and wife, Jo Ann O'neal v. Michael S. Bryant, M.D., and Villages Surgical Associates, P.A.

No. 294PA14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 19, 2016.

O. Drew Grice, Jr., Attorney at Law, Goldsboro, Robert D. Walker, Jr., Attorney at Law, Alexandra Couch, for Bryant, Michael S. (M.D.), et al.

Mark A. Sternlicht, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for King, Robert E., et al.

Matthew D. Ballew, Attorney at Law, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

*ORDER*

On 21 August 2015, this Court ordered this case certified to the trial court for additional findings of fact as to "[w]hether a physician-patient relationship existed at the time Mr. King signed the arbitration agreement." On 6 November 2015, the trial court entered the additional findings of fact.

The Court on its own motion now orders that the parties submit supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if any, of the trial court's additional findings of fact on the proceedings in this case. Appellants' supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days after the date of this order, and appellees' supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days following appellants' filing.

By order of the Court in Conference, this *19th* day of *Feb.* 2016.
Fannie Mae v. Price

257P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

William Gerald Price, for Price, William Gerald.

Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of September 2016 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Mary PONDER v. Mark PONDER

No. 240P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Amy Simpson Fiorenza, Attorney at Law, for Ponder, Mark.

Matthew R. Arnold, Attorney at Law, Kyle A. Frost, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Ponder, Mary.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 23rd of June 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of June 2016 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
IN RE: HUGHES

87A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 21, 2016

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Edwin A. Pressly, Attorney at Law, Statesville, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, for Ingram, Virginia Hughes.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of October 2016 by State of NC for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of October 2016."
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000039

05-FEB-2014

09:27 AM
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Jeremiah Romaine DRUMMER, Defendant.

No. COA 15-671.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2008158EN.01000801.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-392/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/19/EC - Common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2008/C 158/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 2005 L 58, p. 19)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/19/EC of 17 February 2005 amending Directive 90/434/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136198 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: 136198 

 COA: 282665 

Macomb CC: 2005-003571-FH 

THOMAS EARL GOULAIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0915 

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

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

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Focus Magazin Verlag v OHIM – Editorial Planeta
(FOCUS Radio)**

**(Case T-357/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark FOCUS Radio – Earlier national word marks FOCUS MILENIUM – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27-28, 46)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2007 (Case R 269/2005-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Editorial Planeta, SA, and Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark FOCUS Radio for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Application No 2340289 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Editorial Planeta, SA. |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word and figurative marks FOCUS MILENIUM, PLANETA FOCUS and PLANETA FOCUS 99 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 41 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition partially upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Partial annulation of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial dismissal of the application for the Community trade mark |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs. |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7004

JEFFREY R. COLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-03323-PJM)

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey R. Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey R. Cole seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cole has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED