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

| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2008      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ending  November 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sew Cal      Logo, Inc. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                         |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Richard      Songer |   |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   |   |                         |   |

----
# C_2009113EN.01003303.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)

(Case T-109/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 113/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
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, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth, Inc.
do hereby certify that:





(a) the
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PureDepth, Inc. for the three months ended
April 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
Inc.







Dated:
June 13, 2008





/s/
Jonathan J. McCaman





Jonathan
J. McCaman, President (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2008247EN.01001103.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — M.C.O. Congres v Suxess GmbH

(Case C-476/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 247/21)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11282

Summary Calendar

KAMAL K. PATEL,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WAYNE PHILLIPS, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CV-210

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kamal K. Patel, federal prisoner # 56496-080, appeals from the order of

the district court denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the district court, Patel argued that his conviction and

sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). On appeal, he

argues that he should not have been sentenced as an armed career criminal,

pursuant to Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009), and Begay v. United

States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-11282 Document: 00512395680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2013
No. 12-11282

We have nothing to consider in this appeal. Patel raises the

Chambers/Begay argument for the first time on appeal, and we do not consider

issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,

183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover, by failing to raise the Apprendi

issue in his appellate brief, Patel has abandoned it. See Cinel v. Connick, 15

F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994). Patel’s appeal is frivolous.

The current § 2241 petition was not Patel’s first attempt to obtain relief

pursuant to Apprendi or its progeny, United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005), and he has otherwise attempted to challenge his conviction on collateral

review on several occasions. See In re Patel, No. 11-50947, 1-2 (5th Cir. Feb. 28,

2012) (unpublished order denying authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion); In re Patel, No. 05-50674, 1-2 (5th Cir. July 19, 2005)

(unpublished order denying authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion

based on Booker); Patel v. Morris, 37 F. App’x 428, 429-32 (10th Cir. 2002)

(affirming order denying relief under § 2241 based on Apprendi); In re Patel, No.

00-50980 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2000) (unpublished order denying authorization to file

a successive § 2255 motion based on Apprendi). Patel is WARNED that

frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of

sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on

his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s

jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.

2

 Case: 12-11282 Document: 00512395680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2013
The NC State Bar v. Tillett

208PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2016

David P. Ferrell, Attorney at Law, Kevin A. Rust, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Tillett, Jerry R.

G. Patrick Murphy, Attorney at Law, Jennifer A. Porter, Deputy Counsel, Katherine Jean, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, *792David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for The NC State Bar

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Judicial Standards Commission

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of August 2016 by Plaintiff to Amend

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of August 2016."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 762 

To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2007 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DEHYDROEPIANDROSTERONE. 

4 Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act 

5 (21 U.S.C. 802(41)(A)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik7 ing ‘‘corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘and corticosteroids’’; 

9 (2) by redesignating clauses (x) through (xlx) 

10 as clauses (xi) through (xlxi), respectively; and 

11 (3) by inserting after clause (ix) the following: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 762 IS

1 ‘‘(x) dehydroepiandrosterone (androst-5-en-3β2 ol-17-one);’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1147

WISE DAVID ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BURCH & BURCH-RATES, LLC; JONATHAN MELNICK; SHERRIFF RAMSEY,

LLC; MONIQUE ALLEN; LARRY N. BURCH; TOBI BURCH-RATES; NICHOLAS

PHUCAS; AMIR IBRAHIM; DWAIN ALEXANDER, II,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:07-cv-03337-RDB)

Submitted: August 20, 2008 Decided: September 25, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wise David Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wise David Allen seeks to appeal the district court order

dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court may

exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Allen seeks to appeal

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES

514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 19, 2017

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Eric J. Zogry, Juvenile Defender, Marsha L. Levick, Attorney at Law, for Juvenile Law Cent

Mark Dorosin, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Brent Ducharme, Allen Buansi, Peggy Nicholson, Attorneys at Law, Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research, K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project, for Senator Angela Bryant, et al.

Morgan, J.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of May 2017 by Marsha L. Levick for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of May 2017."
Exhibit 10.1





 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This amendment to Employment
Agreement is dated August 1, 2014.


 


WHEREAS, Michael
P. Shaunnessy (“Employee”) and the Company entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated November 12, 2012 whereby
Employee was employed as Chief Executive Officer of the Company effective December 1, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, as
of the date hereof, Employee and the Company have agreed to execute this amendment to the Employment Agreement to accommodate the
wishes of both parties as set forth below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants established in this amendment and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties mutually agree as follows:


 


		1.	Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety as follows:



 


		2.	Term. The term of the Agreement is for a period expiring on December 1, 2016.



 


		2.	Section 7 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and restated in its entirety as follows:



 


		7.	Notices. All notices and communications shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested
or by hand delivery, to the following parties:



 


		If to Employee:	Michael P. Shaunnessy



2212 Plaza
Del Prado


Las Vegas,
NV 89102


 


		If to Employer:	William J. Sherlock



Chairman of
the Board


Nevada Gold
& Casinos, Inc.


133 E. Warm
Springs Road, Suite 102


Las Vegas, NV 89119


 


		With a copy to:	Ernest E. East



Chief Compliance
Officer


Nevada Gold
& Casinos, Inc.


133 E. Warm
Springs Road, Suite 102


Las Vegas, NV 89119


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 


 


	EMPLOYEE	 	NEVADA GOLD & CASINOS, INC.
	 	 	 
	/s/Michael P. Shaunnessy	By:	/s/Ernest E. East
	Michael P. Shaunnessy	 	Ernest E. East
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Deshawn GILCHRIST

No. COA16-956

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

NO PLAIN ERROR.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive Officer of ICP Solar Technologies Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ICP Solar Technologies Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 our financial reporting internal controls which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.

Date: September 15, 2008

/s/ Sass Peress---------------------------------- 
Sass Peress 
Chief Executive Officer

---
# C_2009044EN.01007101.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/71

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Dubus and Leveque v Commission

(Case F-66/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)

(2009/C 44/123)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Charles Dubus (Kraainem, Belgium) and Jean Leveque (Wattignies-la-Victoire, France) (represented by: É. Boigelot, initially, and É. Boigelot and L. Defalque, subsequently, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)

Intervener:

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicants for failure to demonstrate that they were able to work in a third language for the 2006 promotion procedure — Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include M. Dubus's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade C*3 for the 2006 promotion procedure and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include the M. Leveque's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade B*8 under the procedure for the same year; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include M. Dubus's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade C*3 for the 2006 promotion procedure and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include the M. Leveque's name in the list of officials to be promoted to grade B*8 under the procedure for the same year;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the forms of order of sought; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the forms of order of sought;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the cost of the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the cost of the applicants;

| 4. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 54.

1

---
1189.

#### Briggs Hardware Co. *v.*Sofkee Naval Stores Company.

Certiorari, from Grady superior court — Judge Spence. March. 3, 1908.

Submitted July 15,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*G. A. Whitaher,*for plaintiff.

*Ledford & Terrell,*for defendants.

Hill, C. J.

Where a verdict and judgment were rendered in the city court against an alleged partnership and the individual members composing the partnership, and the evidence as to the existence of the partnership is not clear, but the proof of the liability of each of the individuals alleged to compose the partnership demands the verdict and judgment against them as individuals and joint promisors, it is error in the judge of the superior court, on certiorari, to set aside the verdict and judgment generally and order a new trial. This judgment is reversed with direction that the judgment rendered in the city court be so modified as to be effective only as against the individuals named. *Judgment reversed.*
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/A for the
quarterly  period  ended  March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that
information  contained  in  such  Form  10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material
respects  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Pediatric
Prosthetics,  Inc.


                                     By:/s/ Linda Putback-Bean
                                     --------------------------
                                     Linda Putback-Bean
                                     Chief Executive Officer

December 22, 2006

<PAGE>
Palayan Resources, Inc. - Exhibit 4.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com





Exhibit 4 – Specimen Stock Certificate 

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF 

NEVADA 

	NUMBER 	                                                                                                                         	SHARES 
	  	COMMON STOCK 	 
	 	 	 
	  	PALAYAN RESOURCES, INC. 	 
	 	 	 
	                                             	COMMON
      STOCK      300,000,000 AUTHORIZED, $.001 PAR
      VALUE 	 


     CUSIP – 

THIS CERTIFIES THAT 

is the Owner of 

Shares of the Capital Stock of 

PALAYAN RESOURCES, INC. 

transferable only on the Books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney on surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed. 

In Witness Whereof the duly authorized officers of this
Corporation have hereunto subscribed their names and caused the corporate Seal
to be hereunto affixed at 

_____________________________ this
_____________________________day of _____________________________A.D.
_____________________________. ____________________

	Palayan Resources, Inc. 	Joel Dulatre Cortez 	  	Mark Christian Soo 
	 	 	 	 
	Seal 	President 	& 	           
           Secretary 
	 	 	 	 
	Nevada 	  	  	  
	 	 	 	 
	Transfer Agent: 	  	  	  


Shares
_____________________________ Each
UNION COUNTY v. TOWN OF MARSHVILLE

411P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 15, 2016

*266Karlene Scott Turrentine, Attorney at Law, Warrenton, for Town of Marshville.

S. C. Kitchen, Attorney at Law, Durham.

J. Daniel Bishop, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Union County.

Scott A. Hefner, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of November 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of November 2016."

Ervin, J. recused