alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert SORENSON, Appellant.

No. WD 48420.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 30, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 4, 1994.

James A. Fluker, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from judgment of conviction of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and sentence of five years imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### In the ESTATE OF Mary L. BODER, Plaintiff, Mercantile Bank of St. Joseph, N.A., Respondent, v. ALBRECHT ART MUSEUM, et al., Respondents, and Ralph O. Stauber, Sr., et al., Appellants, and Unknown, Unborn and Minor Descendants of Ralph Stauber, St. Joseph Historical Society, et al. and Attorney General of Missouri, Respondents.

No. WD 48083.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 5, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 31, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Ralph 0. Stauber, Sr., appellant pro se.

Stephen J. Briggs, St. Joseph, for respondent Mercantile Bank of St. Joseph.

John Phillip Beihl, St. Joseph, for respondents Albrecht Art Museum and St. Joseph Historical Soc.

Mark Allen Brittingham, St. Louis, for respondent unknown, unborn and minor descendants of Ralph Stauber.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent Atty. Gen. of Missouri.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*546
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from order *allocating*attorney fees against family trust and finding guardian ad litem fee reasonable.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1.     | The                accompanying annual report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June                30, 2008                fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|   | 2.     | The                information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of QPC                Lasers,                Inc.                                                            |

| /s/ George              Lintz                      |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Chief                Financial Officer             |   |   |   |
| (Principal                Financial Officer)  |   |   |   |
|                                               |   |   |   |
| August                14, 2008                     |   |   |   |

----
CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Linda Pancratz, certify that:

1.    I  have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of
    TDL Infomedia Holdings plc;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4.   The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

(b)  [omitted pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238 and 34-
47986];

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

(d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the company's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5.  The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have
    disclosed,  based  on our most recent  evaluation  of
    internal  control  over financial reporting,  to  the
    company's  auditors and the audit  committee  of  the
    company's board of directors (or persons performing the
    equivalent functions):

    (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
         in the design or operation of internal control over
         financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
         adversely affect the company's ability to record,
         process, summarize and report financial information; and

    (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role
         in the company's internal control over financial
         reporting.


Date:  		23 March 2004
Signature:  /s/ LM Pancratz
Title: 		Chief Executive Officer
#### Bernadine BENDA, by Judith M. REYNOLDS, her Guardian, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Respondents.

No. 57017.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 27, 1990.

Dale F. Myers, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Mary Stewart Tansey, Lee B. Vardell, Asst. At-tys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

GRIMM, Judge.

Plaintiff’s petition alleges that, while she was a patient at St. Louis State Hospital, she sustained injuries when she was "severely beaten and injured by another patient.” The defendants include the Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH), *613St. Louis State Hospital, and the hospital’s former superintendent, Milton T. Fujita. Also named as defendants are William Ebersol (the patient who allegedly injured plaintiff) and “Does 1 through 50 inclusive.”

Count I of her petition is titled “Dangerous Condition of Public Property.” It names DMH, hospital, Fujita, as well as “Does 1 through 5,” as defendants. Count II, titled “Medical Negligence,” names hospital and “Does 6 through 25” as defendants. Count III, titled “Negligence,” names DMH, hospital, Fujita, as well as “Does 1 through 50,” as defendants. Count IV, titled “Infliction of Emotional Distress,” names DMH, hospital, Fujita, as well as “Does 1 through 50,” as defendants. Count V, titled “Assault and Battery,” names only Ebersol as a defendant.

On behalf of DMH, hospital, and Fujita, a motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV was filed. The legal file furnished us does not contain any pleadings filed on behalf of Ebersol or the “50 Does.”

The trial court took up, and sustained, the motion to dismiss. The effect of its order was to dismiss those three defendants from the four counts. Nothing in the legal file furnished us, however, reflects any disposition of Count V against Ebersol, or the four claims against the “Does.”

Rule 74.01(b) controls the disposition of this appeal. It provides that when more than one claim for relief is presented or when multiple parties are involved, “the court may enter a judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.”

No such express determination appears in the record. Without such a determination, “the order does not become final for appeal purposes until entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all the parties.” *In re Estate of Caldwell,*766 S.W.2d 464, 466 (Mo.App.E.D.1989). “In the absence of an express determination, ‘the appeal must be dismissed even though the parties do not object to the lack of such a determination.” *Id.*(quoting 10 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & M. KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2660 (p. 120-121) (1983)).

The order granting the motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV of DMH, hospital, and Fujita is interlocutory and thus is not final for appeal purposes. We, therefore, do not reach the merits of plaintiff’s appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

SATZ, P.J., and SMITH, J., concur.
DENY and Opinion Filed September 23, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00760-CV

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-02427-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

Relator, the State of Texas, has filed this petition for writ of mandamus 

complaining that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by striking the State’s 

intervention and (2) real party in interest lacks standing to bring the underlying suit. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that the 

State has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, 

we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 
–2–

Also pending before the Court is relator’s motion to consolidate this original 

proceeding with two related appeals. Having denied the petition for writ of 

mandamus, we deny the motion as moot.

220760f.p05 /Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0284

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

INESSA VICTORIA HALL,

aka INNA VIKTOROVNA POSTOLNIKOVA,

aka NESSA CHRISMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

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

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 16, 2020, within which to prepare, 

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

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 9 2020

11/09/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0284
Exhibit
4.2


 


Name of Company:


CHINA
NEW BORUN CORPORATION


 


Number:


 


Ordinary
Shares:


-      -


 


Issued to:


[name of shareholder]


 


Dated


 


Transferred
from:


Original Issue


Specimen


 


CHINA NEW BORUN
CORPORATION


 


	
  Number

  	
  Ordinary
  Shares

  
	
  [·]

  	
  -[·] -

  



 


Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman
Islands


 


Share capital is US$105,000
divided into


(a) 100,000,000 Ordinary
Shares of a par value of US$0.001 each and


(b) 5,000,000 Preference
Shares of a par value of US$0.001 each


 


THIS IS
TO CERTIFY THAT [name of shareholder]  is
the registered holder of [number of shares]  Ordinary
Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of
Association thereof.


 


EXECUTED
on behalf of the said Company on the                    day
of                                       2010
by:


 


 


	
  DIRECTOR
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  of  GreenShift
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the twelve months ended
     December 31, 2006 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
     Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





                    /S/      KEVIN KREISLER
                    ----------------------------------
                             KEVIN KREISLER
                             Chief Executive Officer

Date:                        April 18, 2007


                   /S/      JAMES GRAINER
                   -----------------------------------
                            JAMES GRAINER
                            President and Chief Financial Officer

Date:                       April 18, 2007

This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Clifford James Gratton v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-10-00615-CR

Trial court case number: 1231782

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris County, Texas

A supplemental clerk’s record complying with our Order of Continuing Abatement has 

been filed with this Court. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated.

We direct the Clerk of this Court to strike the brief filed on January 18, 2011 by previous 

counsel for appellant. 

Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order. The State’s brief will be due 

30 days from the date appellant’s brief is filed. Due to the previous delays in this appeal, no 

extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 2, 2012
Exhibit 10.44

SECOND AMENDMENT

THIS AGREEMENT made effective as of October 13, 2004 between Anika Therapeutics, Inc. ("ANIKA") and MedChem Products, Inc. ("MEDCHEM").

WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM are parties to that Sublease effective November 1, 2001 (the "SUBLEASE");

WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM entered into an Amendment of the SUBLEASE effective October 8, 2003 ("First Amendment");

WHEREAS,
ANIKA and MEDCHEM are desirous of further amending the SUBLEASE;

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties agree to amend the SUBLEASE as follows:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized representatives to execute this Second Amendment.

|Anika Therapeutics, Inc. |                      | MedChem Products, Inc.
|------------------------ | -------------------- | ----------------------
|By:                      | /s/WILLIAM J. KNIGHT |                       
|Title:                   | CFO                  |                       

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.20

2005 Incentive Pool Plan

o    Incentive dollars allocated to employees based on Company Title

o    Should  Company  goals  be met,  discretionary  incentive  bonuses  will be
     allocated to employee groups using guidelines as follows:

                                                 Company Net Income vs. Budget
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                <80%          100%         125%
TITLE                                         Minimum       Target       Target
-----                                         -------       ------       ------
CEO                                                0%          40%         60%
EVP/Pres                                           0%          35%         50%
SVP                                                0%          30%         40%
VP                                                 0%          25%         30%
AVP                                                0%          15%         20%
Other Officers                                     0%           0%          0%
Other Employees                                    0%           0%          0%
ACCRUAL
Consolidated Net Income (000's)                5,730        7,163       8,954
Est. Incentive Pool (000's)                      300        1,200       1,768

o    For  the  calendar  year  2005  we  will  accrue  $300,000  for  incentives
     regardless of net income.

o    The incentive  pool accrual:  (Base  Allocation  dollars are for payment of
     incentives  earned  throughout the year. All  distributions  are considered
     discretionary and are not guaranteed.)

------------------------------------ ------------------- ---------------------
 After-tax Consolidated Net Income     % Of After-Tax       Amount In Pool
                                           Income              (000's)
------------------------------------ ------------------- ---------------------

            0 to 5,000M               Base Allocation            300

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

          5000 to 7,300M                    40%                 1,220

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

             > 7,300M                       30%             1,716 (at Net
                                                          Income of 8,954M)

------------------------------------ ------------------- ---------------------
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice
 On June 2, 2021, the Department of Justice lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana a Consent Decree in 
                    *United States and State of Indiana*
                     v. 
                    *Lone Star Industries, Inc.*
                     Civ. No. 2:21-cv-233-JRS-MJD. The proposed Consent Decree settles claims brought by the United States and State of Indiana against Lone Star for violations of the Clean Air Act and Title 13 of the Indiana Code (including regulations and permits issued thereunder) at the cement manufacturing facility it owns and operates in Greencastle, Indiana. The Consent Decree resolves these claims and requires Lone Star to (1) pay a civil penalty of $729,000 to be split evenly between the state and United States; (2) implement specified measures designed to prevent the continuation or reoccurrence of the violations alleged, and (3) complete various mitigation projects to offset harm caused by its past violations. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and should refer to 
                    *United States and State of Indiana*
                     v. 
                    *Lone Star Industries, Inc.*
                     D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-09889/4. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the proposed Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $12.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Patricia A. McKenna, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2021-12115 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9972]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service
[Docket No. TB-95-11]

Burley Tobacco Advisory Committee; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App.) announcement is made of the following committee meeting:

    Name: Burley Tobacco Advisory Committee.
    Date: June 20, 1995.
    Time: 10 a.m.
    Place: Campbell House Inn, North Colonial Hall, 1375 Harrodsburg 
Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40504.
    Purpose: To elect officers, recommend opening dates, review the 
1995 policies and procedures and other related matters for the 1995 
burley tobacco marketing season.
    The meeting is open to the public. Persons, other than members, 
who wish to address the Committee at the meeting should contact John 
P. Duncan III, Director, Tobacco Division, AMS, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Room 502 Annex Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, 
D.C. 20090-6456, (202) 205-0567, prior to the meeting. Written 
statements may be submitted to the Committee before, at, or after 
the meeting.

    Dated: April 17, 1995.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-9972 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```