alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Allied Spectrum, LLC v. German Auto Center, Inc., et al.

453A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 17, 2017

J. Denton Adams, Attorney at Law, Brice Bratcher, Attorney at Law, for Allied Spectrum, LLC.

John S. Austin, Attorney at Law, for German Auto Center, Inc., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 17th of February 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of February 2017."

*767Defendant shall have up to and including the 20th day of March 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 7/11/98; THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED 
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 36 WEEKS ENDED 7/11/98; AND THE CONDENSED 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE 36 WEEKS ENDED 7/11/98 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-11-1998
<CASH>                                           7,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                       959
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,147
<PP&E>                                          43,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,536
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,799
<SALES>                                        431,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,745
<CGS>                                          335,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  417,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (267)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   564
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,393
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,089
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19174]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Research 
Project (R01s).
    Date: October 24-25, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel & Evaluate Meeting Center, 1750 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Yan Z. Wang, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal 
and Skin Diseases, 6701 Democracy Blvd. Suite 820, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-4957.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-19174 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136965 & (54) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 136965 

 COA: 275652 

Jackson CC: 06-003341-FH 

ERICK LAMONT LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant, 

Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

 CORRIGAN, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her 

dissenting statement in People v Thompson, 477 Mich 146 (2007). 

1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
In the MATTER OF L.C.D.

No. COA16-1035

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            6925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10325
<ALLOWANCES>                                        78
<INVENTORY>                                        414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 18243
<PP&E>                                           12044
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   32610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9480
<BONDS>                                           3367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       18877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     32610
<SALES>                                          30188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 30188
<CGS>                                            10000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    10000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (494)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3885
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2580
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008158EN.01001701.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Imelios v Commission

(Case T-97/07) (1)

1

(Application for annulment - Action for damages - Fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) - Arbitration clause - Debit note - Inadmissible)

(2008/C 158/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Imelios SA (Velizy-Villacoublay, France) (represented by: C. Curtil, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Ladenburger and E. Manhaeve, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision adopted by the Commission following an audit report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to recover, by way of the debit note of 17 January 2007, payments made in the framework of the contract, reference number IST-1999-10934-Assist relating to the ‘Knowledge for Help Desk Operators’ programme, concluded in the context of the Fifth Framework Programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) in the field of user-friendly information, second, a request for payment of EUR 34 368 in respect of an instalment of a grant still to be paid under the contract and, third, a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Imelios SA is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Imelios SA is to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
(108 So. 325)

No. 27691.

#### STATE v. RASBERRY.

(March 1, 1926.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)*

1. Criminal law &wkey;>l 158(1).

Finding by trial judge that defendant was guilty of selling liquor for his own account, and not as agent of purchasers, *held*conclusive on Supreme Court.

2. Criminal law <@=>1158(1).

In criminal case, findings of fact by judge who tries accused are conclusive on the Supreme Court.

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Acadia; W. W. Bailey, Judge.

Zan Rasberry was convicted of selling liquor, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

P. S. Pugh, of Crowley, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., James A. Gremillion, Dist. Atty., .of Crowley (E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ROGERS, J.

[1, 2] This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for the offense of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. There is only one bill of exception in the record, which was taken to the action of the trial judge in overruling a motion for a new trial. The basis of the motion is that the defendant did hot, in fact, sell the liquor, but bought it as the agent of two federal officers, and that he did not derive any profit from the resale to them.

In his statement per curiam, the trial judge says:

> *173“The evidence in this case satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant sold the whisky.

> “The evidence was clear and convincing that defendant was not acting as the agent of the purchasers, but, on the contrary, that he was the vendor.”

The bill of exception raises only a question of fact. The trial judge found that the defendant was' guilty of sellin'g the intoxicating liquor for his own account and that he was not acting *merely*as the *agent*of the purchasers. In a criminal case, the finding of facts by the judge who tries the accused is conclusive upon this court.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
BroadVision, Inc.:

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-109709, 333-97521,
333-63798, 333-35114, 333-62619, and 333-14057) of BroadVision, Inc. of our reports dated March 11, 2005, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of BroadVision, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/
BDO Seidman, LLP

San
Jose, California
March 11, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.1


 


[*]: THE CONFIDENTIAL PORTION HAS BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION.


 


ADDENDUM NO. 2

TO THE SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT

HULL NO. [*]

DATED [*]


 


between


 


MEYER WERFT GMBH, a company organised and existing
under the laws of Germany, and having its principal office at Industriegebiet Süd, D-26871 Papenburg, Germany (the “Builder”);
and


 


[*], a company incorporated in Bermuda and
having its registered office at Cumberland House, 9th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM11, Bermuda (the “Buyer”);
and


 


NCL CORPORATION LTD., a company incorporated
in Bermuda having its registered office at Cumberland House, 9th Floor, 1 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM11, Bermuda (“NCLC”).


 


Whereas, Article [*] Clause [*] of the Contract
provides, that the Builder shall by [*] propose for the Buyer’s approval (not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed) a date
[*] during the period from [*].


 


Whereas, the parties desire to fix the date
of delivery for the Ship.


 


Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises,
and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:


 


		1.	Article [*], Clause [*]:



 


The Delivery Date of the Ship in
accordance with the provisions of the Contract shall be [*].


 


		2.	This Addendum No. 2 will be treated as having been signed by the parties hereto at the time and
on the date when each party has signed and initialled a complete, legible and identical counterpart of this Addendum No. 2 and
exchanged the same by e-mail or fax with the other parties. Thereafter for record purposes only three identical original counterparts
of this Addendum No. 2 shall be signed and initialled by each of the parties after which one original counterpart will be retained
by the Builder, one will be retained by the Buyer and the other will be retained by NCLC.



 




    	 



    	 



    




		3.	Words and expressions defined in the Contract shall have the same meanings when used herein.



 


		4.	Except as set forth in this Addendum No. 2, the Contract shall remain unchanged and this Addendum
No. 2 shall be treated as an integral part of the Contract.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Builder, the Buyer
and NCLC have duly executed this Addendum No. 2.


 


	/s/Bernard Meyer	 


 


For and on behalf of Meyer Werft GmbH

9 July 2013


 


	/s/Kevin M. Sheehan	 


 


For and on behalf of [*]

9 July 2013


 


	/s/Kevin M. Sheehan	 


 


For and on behalf of NCL Corporation Ltd.

9 July 2013


 




    	2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: V.I.P. Royal Palace , LLC and Anna Eaglin v. Hobby Event

Center

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 621

- CV

Trial court case number: 2 0 1 7

- 0 8762

Trial court: 1 33rd District Court o f Harris County

A ppellant s
, V.I.P. Royal Palace , LLC and Anna Eaglin , ha ve filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s final judgment , signed on J une 5 , 2018. Appellant’s brief initially was due on October 12 , 2018. After we granted their motion s for extension,

a ppellant s ’ brief was due by December 27 , 2018 , with no further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances

. On January 18, 2019, the Clerk of this Cou rt notified appellants that neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time ha d been filed and that, if a brief was not filed by January 28, 2019, the Court might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d), 38.8(a)(1),42.3. Appellants have filed a fourth motion for an extension of time, requesting an extension “ of 30

- 45 days ” to file

their brief. The motion is granted

. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of this

order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). No further extensions will be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ Febr u ary 5, 2019

___
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 24, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 24, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0040. ANGEL L. TORRES v. LORI TORRES.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

09A105209
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statement (No. 333-193458) on Form S-1 of AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation of our reportdated April 15, 2014, except for Note 14, as to which date is September 2, 2014, relating to our audit of the consolidatedfinancial statements, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form10-K/A of AmpliPhi Biosciences Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

Richmond, Virginia

Date: September 12, 2014
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31283

(Summary Calendar)

JOHN ROBERTSON, as the Surviving Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; ERNEST

ROBERTSON, as the surviving Brothers and Si sters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; ROSIE

CUNNIKIN, as the Surviving Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; SARAH DUKES,

as the Surviving Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; WILLIE ROBERTSON, as the

Surviving Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased; CINDY WILLIAMS, as the Surviving

Brothers and Sisters of Larry Robertson, Deceased,

Plaintiffs-Appellant s,

versus

NEW ORLEANS CITY OF; DANNY KRAMER, JR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(91-CV-2914-LLM)

February 17, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellants challenge a jury verdict for the defendants in their suit filed pursuant t o 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Because the appellants failed to move for a judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, either at the close of the evidence or after the return of the verdict, the issue is2

reviewed for plain error only, and this Court will reverse only if the judgment complained of results

in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Phillips v. Frey

, 20 F.3d 623, 627 (5th Cir. 1994). The appellants

have “waived the right to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence, and may only complain of the legality

of the verdict, i.e., whether there is any evidence to support the jury verdict.” Id. (Emphasis added).

The testimony of officer Kramer and the taxi driver shows that Kramer, from an objective

standpoint, reasonably believed that he would be killed by Robertson. See Reese v. Anderson , 926

F.2d 494, 500 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, there was some evidence to support the jury’s verdict

that the force used by Kramer was neither excessive nor unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2011145EN.01002302.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 March 2011 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-214/07) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Arable crops - Specific measures for certain agricultural products in favour of the smaller Aegean islands)

2011/C 145/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalikias, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agent and N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2007 L 106, p. 55).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---