alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 1996 have not been
prepared inasmuch as the reporting entities have not commenced operations as of
that date.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

551 CA 16-01910 PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

BRUCE COLEMAN AND ROCHESTER AUTO MAINTENANCE, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. AND TREMARCO CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

KNAUF SHAW LLP, ROCHESTER (ALAN J. KNAUF OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (BERYL NUSBAUM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered March 4, 2016. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for public nuisance and loss of sale proceeds and dismissing all claims by plaintiff Rochester Auto Maintenance, Inc., and denied the cross motion of plaintiffs for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
State of North Carolina v. Joshua Earl Holloman

No. 208PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Amanda Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Holloman, Joshua Earl.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 27th of May 20 16 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of May 2016 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIN EXTRACTED FOR UNION NATIONAL
BANCORP'S DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       7,496,284
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          23,983
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               799,873
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 70,380,902
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      32,619,087
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    179,720,903
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,792,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             302,928,108
<DEPOSITS>                                 232,177,952
<SHORT-TERM>                                18,269,157
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,898,177
<LONG-TERM>                                 25,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,640
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,563,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             302,928,108
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,677,761
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            6,447,828
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               301,493
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            21,427,082
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,244,699
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,232,312
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       11,194,770
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  255,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,007,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             4,431,917,
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,203,094
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    1.68
<LOANS-NON>                                    224,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    38,284
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                959,971
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,772,895
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  268,064
<RECOVERIES>                                    33,090
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,792,921
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,792,921
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Mohammed Nasser JILANI v. Donnie HARRISON, Sheriff Wake County Detention Center

No. 139P17-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2017

Mohammed Nasser Jilani, for Jilani, Mohammed Nasser.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 11th of July 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of July 2017."
# Official Journal L 227/2 Se

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 227 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 482 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 227

English edition

Legislation

Volume 482 September 2005

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/2005 of 1 September 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1435/2005 of 1 September 2005 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (table grapes) | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1434/2005 of 1 September 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1435/2005 of 1 September 2005 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (table grapes)

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

MONICA GREGORY, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:02-cr-35-CWH) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Monica Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Monica Gregory appeals from the district court’s order 

denying her motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Gregory, No. 

4:02-cr-35-CWH (D.S.C. filed Mar. 18, entered Mar. 19, 2008). 

We deny Gregory’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**J. ROE BUCKLEY / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, J. Roe Buckley, Chief Financial Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of MewbourneEnergy Partners 04-A, L.P. (the “Registrant”), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant toSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section. 

 

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Registrant.
Ex 10.1 Cash Compensation Plan for Directors






EXHIBIT 10.1
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. 
Cash Compensation Plan for Directors


Directors who are not employees of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), are paid an annual retainer of $57,500 ($60,000 beginning January 1, 2015). Additional annual retainers are paid to the Chairman of the Board* ($50,000); the Chairman of the Audit Committee ($20,000); the Chairman of the Compensation Committee ($15,000); and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee ($10,000). Additional annual retainers are also paid to directors who serve on committees in roles other than as Chairman as follows: Audit Committee ($10,000); Compensation Committee ($7,500); and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ($5,000). All retainers are paid in quarterly installments. In addition, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to recommend to the full Board of Directors that additional cash payments be made to a non-employee director(s) for extraordinary service during a fiscal year.


* If the Chairman of the Board is an employee of the Company, the $50,000 retainer will be paid to the Lead Independent Director, if one has been appointed.
No. 17,524.

#### Mary T. Hollister *v.*James L. Stayton, Jr.

(281 P. [2d] 513)

Decided March 21, 1955.

Rehearing denied April 7, 1955.

Messrs. Rinn & Connell, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs Wolvington & Wormwood, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Annual Report of Pointer Telocation, Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, for the year ended December 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Zvi Fried, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

| | 1. | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|July 31, 2007 |  | /S/ ZVI FRIED
Zvi FriedChief Financial and Principal Accounting Officer
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



---

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe
v OHIM – Byass (ALFONSO)**

**(Case T-291/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark ALFONSO – Earlier Community and national word marks PRINCIPE ALFONSO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal – Obligation to rule on the entirety of the action – Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

1.                     *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 28-30, 53-61)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Decision on the appeal – Obligation of the Board of Appeal – Scope – Appeal not
ruled upon in its entirety (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 62(1)) (see para. 62)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA and González Byass, SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | González Byass, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ALFONSO for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 – Application No 3398278 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe, SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community and national word marks PRÍNCIPE ALFONSO for goods in Class 33 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition in relation to ‘sherries’ (Class 33) upheld and application for registration for those goods refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal upheld |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1110/2006-2); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
LOCKLEAR v. CUMMINGS, et al.

202A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 19, 2017

Walter L. Hart, IV, Attorney at Law, for Locklear, Marjorie C.

David D. Ward, Attorney at Law, Katherine Hilkey-Boyatt, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Matthew Gambale, Wilmington, for Cummings, Matthew S. (M.D.), et al.

Robert A. Ford, Attorney at Law, Demetrius Worley Berry, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Southeastern Regional Medical Center.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 18th of September 2017 by Plaintiff:

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

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 18th day of October 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Nitsy ANDREWS and Vanessa Love Andrews, Defendants.

No. COA16-1054

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 17, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
# C_2010209EN.01003301.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2010 — CEVA v Commission

(Joined Cases T-428/07 and T-455/07) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Contracts entered into under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme in the field of ‘Quality of life and management of living resources (1998-2002)’ - Seahealth and Biopal projects - Debit notes - Applications for annulment - Reclassification of the actions - Admissibility - Rule that the parties should be heard and rights of the defence - Recovery of all the financial contributions paid by the European Union - Serious financial irregularities)

2010/C 209/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre d'étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by L. Escobar Guerrero and W. Roels, then by W. Roels, acting as Agents, and E. Bouttier, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, in Case T-428/07, of debit note No 3240908670 of 20 September 2007, relating to the Seahealth project and, in Case T-455/07, of debit note No 3240909271 of 4 October 2007, relating to the Biopal contract, and that the Commission be ordered to reimburse those debit notes in favour of CEVA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the other party. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear half of its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the other party.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4133 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4133

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the credit period 
 for which an employer is eligible for the credit for employee health 
                 insurance expenses of small employers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2014

   Mr. Murphy of Florida (for himself, Mr. Peters of California, Mr. 
  Garcia, Mr. Delaney, and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the credit period 
 for which an employer is eligible for the credit for employee health 
                 insurance expenses of small employers.

    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 ``Small Business Attraction and 
Retention Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF CREDIT PERIOD FOR WHICH AN EMPLOYER IS ELIGIBLE 
              FOR THE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSES OF 
              SMALL EMPLOYERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 45R(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``2-consecutive-taxable year period'' and 
inserting ``3-consecutive-taxable year period''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 45R(i) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2-year limit on the credit 
period'' and inserting ``3-year limit on the credit period''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
MOORE, Jr. v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF HENDERSON COUNTY

287P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 28, 2017

John David Noor, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Moore, John Fitzgerald (Jr.).

Charles Russell Burrell, Attorney at Law, for Board of Elections of Henderson County.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2017 by Petitioner for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of August 2017."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00018

- CV

DICEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

, Appellant

v.

AMIGO STAFFING, INC.

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CVK000091

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are assessed against Dicex International, Inc. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

4 3.4 (“ The court of appeals’ judgment should award to the prevailing party costs incurred by that party related to the appeal, including filing fees in the court of appeals and costs for preparation of the record.”).

SIGNED March 24, 2021.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice