alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Simon Defense Inc. Under Contract No. SPE7L3-17-P-0429 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCANo. 62068

Mr. C. James Calleson

President Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

DLA ChiefTrial Attorney Colleen T. Loughran, Esq. Adam J. Heer, Esq.

Trial Attorneys DLALand and Maritime Columbus, OH ORDER OF DISMISSAL FORFAILURE TO PROSECUTE OnJuly 26, 2019, the Board ordered appellant, within 21 days, to file its complaint or notify the Board ifmore time was needed and why. The Orderwas sent to appellant by U.S. mail to the business address providedby C. James Calleson, appellant's President and Director ofOperations, butwas returned to the Board as undeliverable. OnAugust 23, 2019, the Board attempted to contact appellant by telephone using three different numbers associated'with appellant, but was unsuccessful. The Boardthen emailed appellant on the same date requesting updated contact information, but appellant did not respond. On September 3, 2019, the Board emailed appellantusing appellant's business email address and Mr. Calleson's personal email address, again requesting appellant contactthe Board, but did notreceive a reply. On September4, 2019, the Board ordered appellant, within 21 days, to either file a complaint or show cause why the appeal should notbe dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Order was sent to appellant by email to appellant's email address, Mr. Calleson'spersonal email address, and by certifiedU.S. Postal Service mail. This Order was returned to the Board as undeliverable. Appellant has failed to respond to Board Orders dated July 26, 2019 and September4, 2019, and has repeatedly failed to respond to the Board's emails requesting updatedcontact information. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice under Board Rule 17 for failure to prosecute. Dated: October 2, 2019

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals ministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I concur /,,.--- /
OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANo. 62068, Appeal ofSimon Defense Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Capen Trucer Carl ANDERS, II, Employee, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL LEAF NORTH AMERICA, Employer, and ESIS, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA16-910-2

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1394
RUFUS E. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cv-00593-JAB) Submitted: September 25, 2006 Decided: October 16, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus E. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Rufus E. Thompson appeals the district court’s order denying Thompson’s motion to vacate or set aside judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Thompson v. Potter , No. 1:03-cv-00593-JAB (M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 23, 2006; entered Feb. 24, 2006). We deny Thompson’s motion to place his case in abeyance. 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
1627.

#### Moss *v.*The State.

Conviction of assault with intent to rape, from Milton superior-court — Judge Gober. December 21, 1908.

Argued February 9,

Decided February 20, 1909.

*E. L. Patterson,*for plaintiff in error.

*J-. P. BrooJce, solicitor-general, B. P. Simpson,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

A careful examination of eaeli ground of the motion for a new-trial fails to disclose any material error. The rulings on the admissibility of evidence were in substantial accord with the law, and the court’s charge to the jury fairly, accurately, and fully submitted all the issues in the ease. The verdict was the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence, and the able and experienced trial judge gave it his emphatic approval. *Judgment affirmed.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 25, 2013

p0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146827

CAPITOL INSURANCE CORPORATION,

Subrogee of BROOKLYN MANOR, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146827

COA: 307949

Jackson CC: 11-000141-NZ

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2013 

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.
* 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. 07-40950

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTOS PEDRO GARCIA-MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-541-1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Santos Pedro Garcia-Martinez (Garcia) appeals the sentence he received

for his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The

district court imposed an eight-level enhancement under the Sentencing

Guidelines because it determined that Garcia’s second state conviction for

possession of a controlled substance qualified as an “aggravated felony.” Garcia

contends that, in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), his second

possession offense does not qualify as an aggravated felony because he did not

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40950

2

receive the type of procedural safeguards required by 21 U.S.C. § 851 before a

second simple possession offense is punishable as a felony under the recidivist

provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.

While Garcia’s appeal was pending, we decided United States v. CepedaRios, 530 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2008). We rejected the argument made here by

Garcia and affirmed the district court’s determination that a second state

possession offense qualifies as an aggravated felony without a showing that the

State provided the type of procedural safeguards required under § 851. CepedaRios, 530 F.3d at 335-36 & n.11. As here, the appellant in Cepeda-Rios “had the

opportunity to object to the finality of his first state possession conviction at his

federal sentencing hearing, but he did not do so.” Id. at 335 n.11.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 13 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 Dolphin Digital Media, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William O'Dowd IV as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. Section 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.


Date: November 13, 2008.



/s/ William O'Dowd IV
--------------------------------
Name: William O'Dowd IV
Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer






                                       20
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 October 31, 2009 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.  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  June 27, 2011
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00708-CV

Four Seasons Solar Products, L.L.C., Appellant

v.

Charles A. Denney and Dorothy A. Denney, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2007-0128A, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed an agreed motion to dismiss, explaining that they have settled

their dispute. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed on Agreed Motion

Filed: October 24, 2008
State of North Carolina v. James David Williams

No. 195P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016.

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, for Williams, James David.

Erin O. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

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

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2014361EN.01002202.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/22

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-606/14)

2014/C 361/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

| — | in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01003101.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/31

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-548/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/61)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
# C_2008171EN.01003702.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Earth Products v OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH)

(Case T-389/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 171/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Earth Products Inc. (Carlsbad, United States) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Meynard Designs Inc. (Waltham, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2007 (Case R 1590/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Meynard Designs Inc. and Earth Products Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
State v. Sandra Meshell Brice

244PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2017

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Brice, Sandra Meshell.

Staples Hughes.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Nancy D. Hardison, Assistant Attorney General, Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2017."
EXHIBIT 32
                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated: November 8, 2005   /s/ Raymond D. Zinn
                         ------------------------------
                              Raymond D. Zinn
                              Chief Executive Officer


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated: November 8, 2005  /s/ Richard D. Crowley, Jr.
                         ------------------------------
                             Richard D. Crowley
                             Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-07295) pertaining to the 1993 Stock
Option Plan and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 on Form S-3 to Form SB-2
(Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for the registration of 4,724,302 shares of common
stock of our report dated February 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.
 
                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Palo Alto, California
March 13, 1998
---

---

# Exhibit 4.5

# ENGLISH SUMMARY OF THE
LEASE AGREEMENT(ORIGINAL LANGUAGE  HEBREW)

BY AND BETWEEN

# POINTER (EDEN TELECOM
GROUP) LTD.

AND

# MENASHEH MASHIACH,
TZION MASHIACH AND ELIAHU MASHIACH

Dated July 24, 2002

(the
Agreement)

|Term: 
                         
                         
Premises: 
                         
                         
Landlord: 
                         
Tenant: 
Lease Payments (Monthly):
Term Extensions: 
                         
                         
                         
                         
Termination Provisions: | July 14, 2002 - July 13, 2005 ("Term"). The
Term may be  shortened  by the Tenant (as  defined
below) upon six months written notice.
51 Ben-Tzion Galis St., First Floor, Petach
Tikvah, Israel, at Block 6354, Plot 58 (the
"Property")
Menasheh Mashiach, Tzion Mashiach and Eliahu
Mashiach (together, the "Landlord").
Pointer (Eden Telecom Group) Ltd.
An amount in NIS equal to $4,250.
The Tenant shall have the right to extend the
rental period for an additional four-year period
("Extended Term"), upon six months written notice
prior to the end of the Term. The Extended Term
may not be shortened.
Both parties shall have the right to terminate
the Agreement by giving six months advanced
notice.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Comments:

| |  | The
term of the Agreement was due to expire on July 13, 2005, but the parties to the
Agreement, agreed that the term be extended until terminated by six months advanced
notice of such termination by either party.
| | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
STATE v. Robert Wayne STANLEY

376P02-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Stanley, Robert Wayne.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of March 2017 by Defendant to Vacate the Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-106060, 333-116233, 333-131248, 333-125427 and 333-143677 and Form S-3 Nos. 333-101499, 333-31142,333-43066, 333-55370, 333-81432, 333-131246 and 333-145009) of La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and in therelated Prospectuses of our reports dated March 17, 2008, with respect to: (1) the consolidatedfinancial statements of La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, and (2) the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Diego, California
POOLE v. STATE of NC

16P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Timothy R. Poole, For Poole, Timothy R.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of January 2017 by Plaintiff for Writ of Mandamus:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
EXHIBIT 21-1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT:

DiviCom Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

DiviCom Limited (organized under the laws of Barbados), a subsidiary of
    DiviCom Inc.

DiviCom International Limited (organized under the laws of Bermuda), a
    subsidiary of DiviCom Inc.

DiviCom Asia Pacific Limited (organized under the laws of Hong Kong Special
    Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China), a subsidiary of
    DiviCom International Limited

DiviCom Europe SAS (organized under the laws of France), a subsidiary of
    DiviCom International Ltd.

C-Cube Microsystems France (organized under the laws of France), a subsidiary
    of C-Cube Microsystems Inc.

C-Cube U.S. Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd. (organized under the laws of Bermuda)

C-Cube International Limited (organized under the laws of the Hong Kong Special
    Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China), a subsidiary of
    C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd.

C-Cube Microsystems (Asia Pacific) Limited (organized under the laws of the
    Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China)

C-Cube Japan, Inc. (organized under the laws of Japan)

C-Cube Semiconductor Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

*Media Computer Technologies, Inc. (incorporated in California)

*Discontinued operation