alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Calvin Lamar ADAMS

No. 24P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Paige Michaux Phillips, Attorney at Law, Locke Bell, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Calvin Lamar Adams, For Adams, Calvin Lamar.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th of January 2017 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 16th of March 2017."
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 on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”), theundersigned, David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 15, 2004 /s/ David C. Mahoney   David C. Mahoney   Chief Executive Officer
FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 10/6/2015 8:41:06 AM PAM ESTES Clerk
In the MATTER OF: V.G.

No. COA16-733

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4001 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4001

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain activities 
to prevent the interbasin transfer of aquatic invasive species between 
     the Great Lakes and Mississippi River, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2014

   Mrs. Miller of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain activities 
to prevent the interbasin transfer of aquatic invasive species between 
     the Great Lakes and Mississippi River, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending Against Aquatic Invasive 
Species Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. HYDROLOGIC SEPARATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to carry 
out projects necessary to separate the hydrologic connection between 
the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basins to prevent the interbasin 
transfer of aquatic invasive species.
    (b) Timing.--
            (1) Design.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall undertake design 
        activities necessary to carry out the projects authorized under 
        subsection (a).
            (2) Construction.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
        on which design activities undertaken under paragraph (1) are 
        completed, the Secretary shall begin construction of the 
        projects authorized under subsection (a).
    (c) Consultation.--In carrying out projects authorized under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with the--
            (1) Secretary of the Interior;
            (2) Governors of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, 
        New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin;
            (3) Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater 
        Chicago;
            (4) Great Lakes Commission;
            (5) Great Lakes Fishery Commission; and
            (6) Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.
    (d) Non-Federal Interests.--The Secretary may enter into agreements 
with non-Federal interests to assist the carrying out of projects 
authorized under subsection (a).
    (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
carried out under this section may be up to 100 percent.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AGREEMENT
(the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 15th day of July, 2014 by and between Martin P. Rosendale (the “Employee”)
and Cytomedix, Inc. (the “Company”) (collectively, the “Parties”).


WHEREAS,
the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of May 14, 2014 (the “Employment Agreement”); and


WHEREAS,
Section 2(d) (ii) of the Employment Agreement recited certain of the Company’s purported previous grants of stock options
to the Employee (the “Previous Grants”); and


WHEREAS, a
number of the Previous Grants were not validly granted because they exceeded the limit on the number of options that may be granted
by the Company within any calendar year period (the “Excess Grants”); and the Company has already (with the Employee’s
knowledge and consent) revised and reformed the Previous Grants to be consistent with applicable individual grant limits (such
reformed grants hereinafter called the “Reformed Grants”); and


WHEREAS,
the Parties now also wish to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect their respective intents with respect to the Reformed Grants;


NOW THEREFORE,
in consideration of the Company’s undertaking to provide in connection with its next grant of options to the Employee
a vesting schedule more favorable to the Employee than the four year vesting schedule provided in connection with the Excess Grants,
and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree
that Section 2(d) (ii) of the Employment Agreement be, and it hereby is amended, by adding thereto, the following sentence:


“Notwithstanding
the preceding or any other provision of this Agreement, Employee shall have rights to stock option(s) granted by the Company during
2014 only in numbers that conform to any limits on the number of stock options that may be granted to “Key Employees”
within any calendar year period under the Company’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement, to be effective as of May 14, 2014.


	CYTOMEDIX, INC.	 	EMPLOYEE	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Lyle Hohnke	 	/s/ Martin P. Rosendale	 
	 	Lyle Hohnke, Compensation Committee Chairman
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert MCPHAIL

No. 341P14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Robert McPhail, for McPhail, Robert.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st of May 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of May 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of May 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

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

Ervin, J. recused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0029

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSE LUIS PERALTA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 27, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 16 2021

11/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0029
In the Matter of: D.S.S. and J.L.S.

No. COA15-844.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
---

---

EXHIBIT 14.3

SALLES,
SAINZ  GRANT THORNTON, S.C.

# Consent of Independent
Auditors

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Pointer Telocation Ltd. (the
Company), on Form F-3 and on Form S-8, and each prospectus constituting a part
thereof, of our report dated January 30, 2007, relating to the financial statements for
Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, for the year ended December 31,
2006 included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F/A
for the year ended December 31, 2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

| | /s/
SALLES, SAINZ - GRANT THORNTON, S.C.
| | ----------------------------------------

Mexico City, Mexico
July 30, 2007



---

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 Triangle Petroleum Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Aly
      Musani, 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, to my
      knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




/s/
              ALY
              MUSANIAly
              MusaniChief
              Financial
              OfficerDecember 15, 2006
ABRONS FAMILY PRACTICE & URGENT CARE, PA, et al. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Attorney at Law, Ruth A. Levy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law.

Matthew Jordan Cochran, Attorney at Law, Thomas E. Cone, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Curtis B. Venable, Attorney at Law, Stephen J. White, Attorney at Law, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al.

Matthew W. Wolfe, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for American Medical Association, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of June 2017 by Defendant (NC DHHS):

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2017."

Defendant (NC DHHS) shall have up to and including the 5th day of July 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 10.5
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 MAKEMUSIC, INC.
2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 
      Grant of Restricted Stock Unit Award .
 Vesting of Restricted Stock Units .
 General .
 Number of Restricted Stock UnitsVesting Date
    
    Available for Exercise, 20, 20, 20, 20
 Termination of Relationship . [a key employee or
officer] [a consultant or advisor] [a director]




---



##### 



Issuance of Shares; Rights as a Shareholder .
 Change of Control .
 Acceleration .
 Change of Control Defined .
      Limitation on Change of Control Payments .
 2




---



##### 



Miscellaneous .
 Employment; Rights as Shareholder .
 Securities Law Compliance .
 Mergers, Recapitalizations, Stock Splits, Etc. i.e.
 Shares Reserved .
 Withholding Taxes .
 3




---



##### 



Nontransferability .
 2003 Equity Incentive Plan .
 Lockup Period Limitation .
 Blue Sky Limitation .
 Stock Legend .
 4




---



##### 



Scope of Agreement .
 Arbitration .
 Accounting Compliance .
 Right to Amend .
 Governing Law .
 [Signature page follows]
 5




---



##### 



MAKEMUSIC, INC.By:Its: By execution hereof, the
Participant acknowledges having
received a copy of the Plan.
    PARTICIPANT 6
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERTSON’S L.L.C. AND

ALBERTSON’S, INC.,

 Appellants,

v.

ANDREW DOSS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00249-CV

Appeal from the

448th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2007-348) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2). The parties represent in their motion that they have reached an

agreement to settle and compromise their differences and request that this Court: (1) dismiss the

appeal; (2) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits; and (3) remand the

case to the trial court for dismissal in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the appellate court to dispose of an appeal in accordance with an

agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk. This joint motion

seeks dismissal of the appeal and remand for entry of further orders by the trial court, in

accordance to the settlement. While this Court may dismiss an appeal pursuant to an agreement

by the parties, we are not permitted to dismiss and remand for further proceedings. Rule

42.1(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that this Court may: 

(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreements;

(B) set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and
-2-

remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance

with the agreements; or 

(C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the

agreement.

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2).

Therefore, we will construe this motion as one pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), and

GRANT the parties’ motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits

and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the

agreement. Furthermore, as the parties have agreed, costs on appeal shall be taxes against the

party incurring the same. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

October 2, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

Carr, J., Not Participating
STATE of North Carolina, v. Michael Craig MOODY, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-11

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

DISMISSED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 1 49 DB 2021 (No. 2 RST 2022)

:

MARTIN E. ODSTRCHEL : Attorney Registration No. 68603

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM RETIRED STATUS : ( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of January

, 202 2 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 4 , 202 2

, is approved and it is ORDERED that

MARTIN E. ODSTRCHEL

, who has been on Retired Status

, has never been suspended

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.
TYLER v. NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

277P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 16, 2017

Casey Rafeal Tyler, for Tyler, Casey Rafeal.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of August 2017 by Petitioner for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of August 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Luis DOMINGUEZ

No. 15P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

*66Jose Luis Dominguez, for Dominguez, Jose Luis.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th of April 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 8th of June 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
STATE v. William Curtis LOWERY, Jr.

330P13-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Tammy A. Bouchelle, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

William Curtis Lowery, Jr., for Lowery, William Curtis

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of April 2017 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

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

Ervin, J. recused
# C_2008272EN.01002502.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Alcon v OHIM — *Acri.Tec (BioVisc)

(Case T-106/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BioVisc - Earlier international word marks PROVISC and DUOVISC - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 272/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcon Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Graf and R. Schulz, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte (Hennigsdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. von Welser, lawyer)

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 8 February 2007 (Case R 660/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Alcon Inc. and *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Alcon Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcon Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4057 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4057

   To authorize funding for construction of U.S. Customs and Border 
    Protection customs plazas at land ports of entry, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2014

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize funding for construction of U.S. Customs and Border 
    Protection customs plazas at land ports of entry, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Customs Plaza Construction Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

    (a) In General.--To promote the facilitation of a functional and 
secure border, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to 
construct facilities and buildings at land ports of entry. The 
Secretary shall collaborate with the appropriate crossing authority at 
such ports concerning such construction.
    (b) Location.--Facilities and buildings constructed at land ports 
of entry pursuant to subsection (a) shall be located within the same 
local jurisdiction as an existing land port of entry.
    (c) Prioritization.--Priority in the construction of facilities and 
buildings at land ports of entry pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
given to land ports of entry that have the highest trade volume as 
measured by the value of shipments, including exports and imports, that 
pass through such ports.
    (d) Funding.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of 
appropriations under subsection (e) to construct facilities and 
buildings at land ports of entry pursuant to subsection (a)--
            (1) may be obligated and expended only for such 
        construction, including for pavement, inspection booths, 
        offices, wiring, and communications infrastructure; and
            (2) may not be obligated or expended on utility 
        construction or relocation of any such port.
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this Act there 
is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security 
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2015 through 
2021.
                                 <all>
```