alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.12


 





	
        PATENTS

        INDIA
	
        A S S I G N M E N T

         

		NO LEGALISATION


 


WHEREAS (1) 1/ We, RAN KOHEN


 


of (2) 20735 NE 32 PL, Aventura, FL 33180
US


 


have invented certain new and useful invention
in respect of (3)


QUICK CONNECT ASSEMBLY,
IN Patent Application No. 2390/KOLNP/2007


for which application for Letters Patent is
about to be made AND WHEREAS (4)


SAFETY QUICK LIGHTING
& FANS CORP.


of(5)


3245 Peachtree
Parkway, Suite 0310 Suwanee, GA 30024 US


is/are desirous of acquiring an interest in
said invention and in the Letters Patent to be obtained therefor.


 


NOW THEREFORE
be it known to all whom it may concern, that in and for a consideration of Rupees Ten/US $ One in hand paid to me/us receipt whereof
is hereby acknowledged 1/We have assigned, transferred and set over and by these presents do assign, transfer and set over unto
the said (4)


SAFETY
QUICK LIGHTING & FANS CORP.


on (6) 13 Nov 2013 so far as INDIA
is concerned my/ our full and exclusive right, title and interest in and to the said invention/ application, including the right
to claim priority, preparatory to obtaining Letters Patent therefor; said invention, application and Letters Patent to be held
and enjoyed by the said (4)


SAFETY QUICK
LIGHTING & FANS CORP.


for the full term
for which said Letters Patent is granted, as fully and entirely as the same would have been held by me/ us had this assignment
and transfer not been made.


 


In witness whereof, 1/We
have set below my/our hands this (6)13 day of November 2013


confirming the above referred transfer.


 


Signature of lnventor(s) - ..../s/ Ran Kohen.......... .................................. ..................................


 


.................................. .................................. ..................................


 


Signature of two witnesses - TWO WITNESSES


with name and address


 


Signature:/s/ Angella Larson-Coone


Name & Address:21355 East Dixie Highway, Miami
FL 33180


Signature:/s/ Dinah Fuentes


Name & Address:21355 East Dixie Highway, Miami
FL 33180





 


	
        1. Inventor's name(s) in full

        2. Inventor's address(es)

        3. Title of Invention

        4. Assignee's name

        5. Assignee's address

        6. Date prior to filing
	
        D.P.
        Ahuja & Co.

        53 SYED AMIR ALl AVENUE CALCUTTA 700 019
        INDIA

        FAX 91 ( 33) 22819441 OR 91 (33) 22819444

         

        Copyright© 1971, 1999-2006 D.P. Ahuja&
        Co.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7507

MICKEY L. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GOHAR ABBASI, Medical Doctor,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

G. MARSHAL, Head Nurse; MRS. CROCKETT, EMT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-383-3)

Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mickey L. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Jones Blain, HARMAN,

CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Mickey L. Phillips seeks to appeal from the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation issued in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

action. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order Phillips seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we grant

Appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Phillips’ motion for appointment of counsel.

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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 21

- 0612

Mark F. Higgins

MACo Defense Services 2717 Skyway Drive, Suite F
Helena, MT 59602

- 1213 Phone (406) 441

- 5471 Fax (406) 441

- 5497 mhiggins@mtcounties.org Attorneys for Defendant

– Appellant

DALE YATSKO AND JANELLE

YATSKO D/B/A GREEN CREEK

D ISPENSARY

,

Pl aintiff s

– Appellee s

,

v.

CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA

,

Def endant

– Appell ant

. GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon Review of Appellant ’s Unopposed Motion for Extension to File

Appellant’s Reply Brief and with good cause;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant’s are granted an extension of

time up to and including August 10 , 20 22 in which to file and serve its reply brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 5 2022

07/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0612
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Neal PRINCE

No. 151P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Elizabeth N. Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Prince, Timothy Neal.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of October 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 7th of December 2017."
Exhibit 14.3





SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON, S.C.





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





In connection with the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  ("SEC"), of Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Pointer Telocation Ltd. ("Pointer"), for the year ended December 31, 2011,we consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-111019, 333-126257, 333-143399 and 333-167144) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (No. 333-173155, 333-118897, 333-113420, 333-141306, 333-139717) pertaining to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of Pointer Telocation Ltd., of our report dated January 25, 2008, with respect to the financial statements of Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Pointer, for the year ended December 31, 2011, filed with the SEC.





/s/ SALLES, SAINZ – GRANT THORNTON, S.C.

By Rogelio Avalos, CPA


Mexico City, Mexico


April 23, 2012
STATE of North Carolina v. Ailkeem Anthony NORMAN

No. 153AP17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Ben G. Irons, II, Attorney at Law, For Norman, Ailkeem Anthony.

Mr. Douglas W. Corkhill, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, For State.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of May 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 17th of May 2017 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the State on the 6th day of June, 2017, the Court allows the State's Petition For Discretionary Review for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of our decision in State v. Brice, --- N.C. ----, --- S.E.2d ----, 2017 WL 5017127 (3 November 2017) :

*488"Special Order by order of the Court in Conference, this the 1st day of November 2017."
MEINCK v. CITY OF GASTONIA

130PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 10, 2017

Thomas D. Bumgardner, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Meinck, Joan A.

Martha Raymond Thompson, Attorney at Law, Gastonia, Ryan L. Bostic, Attorney at Law, Aaron C. Low, Attorney at Law, Gastonia, for City of Gastonia.

Andrew J. Santaniello, Attorney at Law, Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

Huntington M. Willis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, William R. Terpening, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of October 2017 by North Carolina Advocates For Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of October 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136841 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

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



## v SC: 136841 COA: 274131 Isabella CC: 06-000516-FH PAUL JAMES ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
RE: EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING PILOT PROGRAM-COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Appellate Case No. 2015-002439

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

January 4, 2018

ORDER

**15Pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established by Order dated December 1, 2015, is expanded to include Laurens and Newberry Counties. Effective January 16, 2018, all filings in all common pleas cases commenced or pending in Laurens and Newberry Counties must be E-Filed if the party is represented by an attorney, unless the type of case or the type of filing is excluded from the Pilot Program. The counties currently designated for mandatory E-Filing are as follows:

|Aiken        | Allendale                                           | Anderson    | Bamberg   
|------------ | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------- | ----------
|Barnwell     | Beaufort                                            | Cherokee    | Clarendon 
|Colleton     | Edgefield                                           | Georgetown  | Greenville
|Hampton      | Horry                                               | Jasper      | Kershaw   
|Lee          | Lexington                                           | McCormick   | Oconee    
|Pickens      | Saluda                                              | Spartanburg | Sumter    
|Williamsburg | **Laurens and Newberry-Effective January 16, 2018**

Attorneys should refer to the South Carolina Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines, which were adopted by the Supreme Court on October 28, 2015, and the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page at *http://www.sccourts.org/efiling/* to determine whether any specific filings are exempted from the requirement that they be E-Filed. Attorneys who have cases pending in Pilot Counties are strongly encouraged to review, and to instruct their staff to review, the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*

Donald W. Beatty

Chief Justice of South Carolina
#### In re: TAX LITIGATION

Nos. CIV.2000-141, CIV.2000-167, CIV. 2001-151, CIV.2001-155, CIV.2001-181, CIV.2001-196, CIV.2001-197, CIV.2001-228, CIV.2002-057.

District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Thomas and St. John.

Aug. 13, 2003.

ORDER

MOORE, District Judge.

The Government of the Virgin Islands has renewed its motion to stay the portion *436of this Court’s May 12, 2003 Decree that enjoined the Government from collecting property taxes based on the unlawful assessment system presently in place. In the May 12, 2003 Decree, I suggested that the Government would be able to issue bills based on the illegal assessment values for calender year 1998 reflected in the 1999 tax bills1 if it provided a mechanism to adjust the assessments and bills retroactively. I indicated that this could be done by giving credits for overpayment and issuing supplemental bills for underpayments once the Special Master has certified that the Territory’s tax assessment system as equitably and reliably assessing real property at its actual value and all property has been reassessed from calender year 1998 forward. The Virgin Islands responded to this suggestion with the passage of Act No. 6586, which provides the aforementioned relief. The Governor signed this Act into law on July 14, 2003. Therefore, as I find that the Government has acted sufficiently to provide relief for the Territory’s taxpayers and believe that the Government is entitled to collect revenue from property taxes, I shall modify the May 12, 2003 injunction in regard to all non-plaintiff taxpayers to allow the Government to issue tax bills based on the 1998 assessments reflected in the 1999 tax bills. The injunction shall remain unmodified and in full effect for all parties to this litigation.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the portion of the May 12, 2003 injunction prohibiting the Government from collecting property taxes based on the 1998 assessment reflected in the 1999 tax bills is LIFTED in regard to all non-plaintiff taxpayers only, and that it remains in full effect regarding all plaintiffs in this litigation.

1

. Although property in the Virgin Islands is assessed on a calender year basis, the assessment roll on which tax bills are issued is established as of January 15 of the following year, when the Tax Assessor determines the ownership of all properties. *See*33 V.I.C. §§ 2301(a), 2405(a). Accordingly, the 1999 property tax bill was based on the 1998 assessment level.
Mina Kompani Hashemi, Plaintiff, v. Ali Reza Hashemi Nejad, Defendant.

No. COA16-358

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

DISMISSED.
Jason H. PERRY, Plaintiff, v. WEST MARINE, INC. (also known as West Marine Products, Inc.), Defendant.

No. COA17-243

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

AFFIRMED.
**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 Town SportsInternational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the three month period ending June 30,2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Pyle,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:          (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    represents, in all material respects, the financial condition    and result of operations of the Company.August 2, 2005    /s/ Richard Pyle           Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. *Chief Financial Officer* *Office of the President*
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19269]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34731]


Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad Company--Temporary Trackage 
Rights Exemption--Norfolk Southern Railway Company

    Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR) has agreed to grant non-
exclusive, overhead, temporary trackage rights to Nittany and Bald 
Eagle Railroad Company (N&BE) over a portion of NSR's rail line between 
Lock Haven, PA, NSR milepost 194.2, and Driftwood, PA, NSR milepost 
139.2, a distance of approximately 55 miles. The transaction was 
scheduled to be consummated on or after the September 19, 2005 
effective date of the exemption, and will expire on November 30, 2005. 
The purpose of the temporary trackage rights is to allow N&BE to 
operate bridge train service for temporary, seasonal traffic.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A redacted version of the trackage rights agreement between 
NSR and N&BE was filed with the notice of exemption. The full 
version of the agreement, as required by 49 CFR 1180.6(a)(7)(ii), 
was concurrently filed under seal along with a motion for protective 
order. A protective order was served on September 21, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 
354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease 
and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), any employees affected by the 
discontinuance of those trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions set out in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34731, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Richard R. Wilson, 127 
Lexington Avenue, Suite 100, Altoona, PA 16601.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 21, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19269 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
**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 amended Quarterly Report of Triangle Petroleum Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending April 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Mark Gustafson, Principal Executive 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/
                MARK GUSTAFSONMark
                GustafsonPresident
                (Principal Executive Officer)March
                6, 2008
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to 

extend the termination date. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4120 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT 

2 TERMINATION DATE EXTENDED. 

3 Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Mu4 seum Act (Public Law 106–492) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘13 years’’ and inserting ‘‘16 years’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this 

8 Act were enacted on November 8, 2013. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Donald L. DUGAN and Rita M. Erickson, Respondents, v. Wanda FISHER as Representative Ad Litem for Charles C. Fisher, deceased, and Wanda Fisher, Appellants.

No. ED 82122.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division four.

Sept. 2, 2003.

*686Randall D. Sherman, Hillsboro, MO, for appellant.

Jeffrey S. Heuer, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Wanda Fisher, as representative ad litem for Charles C. Fisher, and Wanda Fisher, personally, appeal from the trial court’s judgment in favor of Respondents Donald L. Dugan and Rita M. Erickson on their claim of negligent misrepresentation.1 In Appellants’ first three points on appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court’s judgment was against the weight of the evidence and not supported by substantial evidence. In Appellant’s fourth and fifth points on appeal, they argue the trial court abused its discretion in awarding an excessive amount of restitution damages to Respondents and in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Respondents.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Respondents’ Special Rule 400 Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees Incurred on Appeal, filed on August 13, 2003, is hereby denied.