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

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001315

03-MAR-2015

08:33 AM
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 Maximum Awards, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre as Chief Executive Officer and Enzo Taddei as
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: October 15, 2007



/s/ Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
--------------------------------
Name: Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Enzo Taddei
--------------------------------
Name: Enzo Taddei
Chief Financial Officer






                                       26
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.1

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 Annual Report of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F/A (Amendment No.1) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Danny Stern, Chief Executive 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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|October 26, 2005 |  | /S/ DANNY STERN
Danny SternChief Executive 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.



---

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : NO. 701 : APPOINTMENT TO COURT OF : SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET : JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE : **O R D E R** PER CURIAM:
AND NOW , this 30th day of June , 201 6 , Doris C. Wi lliams, * Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Court of Judicial Discipline for a term expiring February 19, 2020. *Non-lawyer elector
Roy A. COOPER, III, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina v. Philip E. BERGER, in His Official Capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate; and Timothy K. Moore, in His Official Capacity as Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives

No. 52PA17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 24, 2017

D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Candace S. Friel, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Berger, Philip E.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Eric M. David, Attorney at Law, Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Cooper, Roy A. (III).

Grayson Kelley, Chief Deputy.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General.

**ORDER**

In the interest of justice and to ensure consideration of all contested issues in this matter, the Court orders that Defendants may file an appellant brief with this Court on or before 3 August 2017.

Pursuant to our order of 19 July 2017, this Court will maintain the following expedited briefing schedule in this case:

Appellants' briefs shall be due on or before 3 August 2017;

Appellees' briefs shall be due on or before 18 August 2017;

Appellants' reply briefs shall be due on or before 23 August 2017.

Oral argument will be heard on 28 August 2017.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1607

NORMAN L. NICHOLS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAROLINE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA02-3523-1-JFM)

Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman L. Nichols, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Robert Stellman,

Steven Bruce Schwartzman, HODES, ULMAN, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A.,

Towson, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Norman L. Nichols, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order granting summary judgment for the Caroline County Board of

Education on Nichols’s racial, gender, religion, and speech

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Nichols v. Caroline County Bd. of Educ.,

No. CA-02-3523-1-JFM (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2004). 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
David EASTER-ROZZELLE, Employee v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Employer, Self-Insured

No. 52PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Lawrence J. Goldman, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for City of Charlotte.

Steven B. Hayes, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Easter-Rozzelle, David.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of February 2016 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of February 2016 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Petition for Discretionary Review Out of Time:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition in the alternative filed by Plaintiff on the 17th of February 2016 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 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).
# C_2009006EN.01003001.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/30

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2008 — Buzzi Unichem v Commission

(Case T-241/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System of exchange of greenhouse gas emissions allowances - National plan for the allocation of emission allowances for Italy for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Commission Decision not to raise objections on certain conditions - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2009/C 6/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Buzzi Unichem SpA (Casale Monferrato, Italy) (represented by: C. Vivani, M. Vellano and G. Osch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission Decision of 15 May 2007 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Italy for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), inasmuch as the Commission makes its decision not to raise objections with regard to that national allocation plan conditional on withdrawal of the authorisation for installation operators to retain part of the allowances allocated in the event of ‘closure due to a production rationalisation process’.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Buzzi Unichem SpA shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Buzzi Unichem SpA shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
#### Paul Tropp, Respondent, *v.*Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 9, 1943.

*Eugene Z. DuBose*for appellant.

*William Rosmarin*for respondent.

*1073Memorandum *Per Curiam.*

In failing to correct Ms erroneous charge without qualification or condition, the trial court committed reversiMe error. *(Meyer*v. *Clark,*45 N. Y. 285; *Orendorf*v. *New York Central & H. R. R. R. Co.,*119 App. Div. 638.)

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

Sohmuok, McLaughlin and Hecht, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3916 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3916

  To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote the expansion of 
 spectrum-based services to exceptionally hard-to-serve populations in 
             unserved and underserved geographic locations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2014

  Mr. Kilmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote the expansion of 
 spectrum-based services to exceptionally hard-to-serve populations in 
             unserved and underserved geographic locations.

    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 ``Promoting Rural Broadband Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. PROMOTION OF SPECTRUM-BASED SERVICES IN UNSERVED AND 
              UNDERSERVED LOCATIONS.

    Section 309(j)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
309(j)(4)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(G) promote the expansion of spectrum-based 
                services to exceptionally hard-to-serve populations in 
                unserved and underserved geographic locations.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2658

___________________________

Miguel Angel Martinez-Merlos; Cristina Martinez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: March 20, 2013 

Filed: April 5, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Miguel Martinez-Merlos (Martinez-Merlos), a citizen of El Salvador, and his

wife Christina Martinez (Martinez), a citizen of Mexico, petition for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration

judge’s adverse decision. After careful consideration of the petition, we find no basis

for reversal. 
First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of

Martinez-Merlos’s application for cancellation of removal. See Zacarias-Velasquez

v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review

denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely

unusual hardship); see also Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370, 372-73 (8th Cir.

2009) (jurisdictional bar applied to petitioner’s argument that BIA had applied “an

incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors,” as

petitioner was merely challenging BIA’s discretionary conclusion that circumstances

did not merit cancellation ofremoval). Second, we conclude thatsubstantial evidence

supported the BIA’s decision to deny Martinez asylum and withholding of removal. 

See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781, 784 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court

upholds denial of asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence; denial of asylum

dictates same outcome on withholding-of-removal claim based on same underlying

factual allegations); see also Constanza v. Holder, 647 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 2011)

(per curiam) (membership in particular social group requires that members hold

immutable characteristic, or common trait such as sex, color, kinship, or shared past

experiences, and that group has sufficient particularity and visibility to be perceived

by society as cohesive group). 

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
STATE of North Carolina v. Charlie NORMAN, Jr.

No. COA16-1232

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

NO ERROR.
---

---

# Exhibit 4.21

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

BY AND BETWEEN

# SHAGRIR (1985) LTD.

AND

# POINTER (EDEN TELECOM
GROUP) LTD.

Dated January 3, 2005

|Term: 
Premises: 
                         
Landlord: 
Tenant: 
Lease Payments (Monthly):
Term Extensions: 
                         
                         
                         
Termination Provisions: 
                         
                         
                         
                         
Security: | February 28, 2005 - Febuary 28, 2007 ("Term").
8 Hanefach Street, Holon, Israel,
at Block 6781, Plot 15 (the "Property")
Shagrir (1985) Ltd.
Pointer (Eden Telecom Group) Ltd.
An amount in NIS equal to $10,430.
The Tenant shall have the right to extend the
rental period for an additional twenty-four month
period ("Extended Term"), upon three months
written notice prior to the end of the Term.
The Tenant cannot bring the lease to an end prior
to the conclusion of the Term or the Extended
Term, as the case may be. The Tenant may,
however, sub-let the property, subject to certain
conditions.
Tenant shall  obtain a bank  guarantee in favor of
the  Landlord  in the  NIS  equivalent  amount  of
$30,000.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
----

Action brought on 27 April 2005 by Elf Aquitaine against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-174/05)

(2005/C 171/51)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2005 by Elf Aquitaine, having its registered office in Courbevoie (France), represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Evelyne Friedel, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant was involved in a concerted practice consisting of allocating production quotas and customers, agreeing price increases, setting up a compensation mechanism, exchanging information on sales volumes and prices, meeting regularly and being involved in other forms of contact, in order to agree on and implement the restrictions described. The Commission imposed a fine on the applicant as a result of these infringements.

The applicant submits that the contested decision imposes a fine on it for an infringement committed by its subsidiary and claims that it should be annulled. It relies on the following pleas:

----
**Consent of Independent Public Accountants**

               Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statementsof Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd., on Form F-3 and on Form S-8, and eachprospectus constituting a part thereof, of our report dated April 30, 2003,relating to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Reporton Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.

|  
KOST FORER & GABBAY

 
A Member of Ernst & Young Global

 
  
Tel Aviv,  Israel

 
June 22,  2003

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Johnnie M. DARDEN SR., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.

No. COA16-337

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4019 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the expensing 

of certain depreciable business assets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2014 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. TIPTON, Ms. KUSTER, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. 

SWALWELL of California, and Mr. OWENS) 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 extend 

the expensing of certain depreciable business assets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXPENSING LIMITATION. 

7 (a) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) of section 

8 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend9 ed— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4019 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or 2013’’ in subparagraph (B) 

2 and inserting ‘‘2013, 2014, or 2015’’, and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘after 2013’’ in subparagraph 

4 (C) and inserting ‘‘after 2015’’. 

5 (b) REDUCTION IN LIMITATION.—Paragraph (2) of 

6 section 179(b) of such Code is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘or 2013’’ in subparagraph (B) 

8 and inserting ‘‘2013, 2014, or 2015’’, and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘after 2013’’ in subparagraph 

10 (C) and inserting ‘‘after 2015’’. 

11 (c) COMPUTER SOFTWARE.—Clause (ii) of section 

12 179(d)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘before 

13 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘before 2016’’. 

14 (d) ELECTION.—Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of 

15 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘before 2014’’ and in16 serting ‘‘before 2016’’. 

17 (e) SPECIAL RULES FOR TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED

18 REAL PROPERTY.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

20 179(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘or 

21 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2013, 2014, or 2015’’. 

22 (2) CARRYOVER.—Paragraph (4) of section 

23 179(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ 

24 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4019 IH

1 (f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6560

GEORGE D. FIELDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-96-3869-WMN)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George D. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Fields v. Waters, No. CA-96-3869-WMN (D. Md.

Apr. 11, 1997). 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