alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD MICHAEL McCRARY

No. 413A14

Filed 18 December 2015

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 764 S.E.2d 477 (2014), affirming in part and remanding in part for additional findings of fact an order denying motions to suppress and to dismiss entered on 18 March 2013, which resulted in judgments entered on 21 March 2013, all by Judge W. Osmond Smith in Superior Court, Chatham County. On 10 June 2015, the Supreme Court allowed defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari and the State’s petition for discretionary review. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 November 2015.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant/appellee.*

*John L. Wait for defendant-appellant/appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

This case comes before this Court from the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s 18 March 2013 order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, but remanded the case “to the trial court to make additional findings of fact addressing the availability of a magistrate and the additional time and uncertainties in obtaining a warrant, as well as the other attendant circumstances that bear upon the conclusion of law that exigent circumstances existed that justified the warrantless blood draw. *State v.*McCrary, _ N.C. App. _, _, 764 S.E.2d 477, 483 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In considering this case, the trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in *Missouri v.*McNeely, _ U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). Moreover, in remanding to the trial court for further findings of fact, the Court of Appeals did not vacate or reverse the trial court’s previous order.

We affirm the Court of Appeals majority opinion to the extent it affirms the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. In addition, we remand to the Court of Appeals with instructions to that court to vacate the portion of the trial court’s 18 March 2013 order denying *572defendant’s motion to suppress and further remand to the trial court for (1) additional findings and conclusions — and, if necessary — a new hearing on whether the totality of the events underlying defendant’s motion to suppress gave rise to exigent circumstances, and (2) thereafter to reconsider, if necessary, the judgments and commitments entered by the trial court on 21 March 2013. Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the State’s petition for discretionary review were improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REMANDED; PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       285,165
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,612
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
05/19/201 1 09:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S 0001/00 2

BEFORE TH E U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N Administrativ e La

w Judg e No t

Ye t Assigne d
In th e matte r

o f Comlu x Aviatio n Services , LL C

Responden t DM S No. ; No t Yet Assigne d.: : F A A Docke t

No. ; No t Ye t A.5signe d1 . FAA Cas e No. : 20 1 IGL l 1010 9 " ^ RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O ^ WITHDRA W TH E REQUES T FOB >

HEARIN G = : Csi _

— J Come s no w th e Respondent , Comlu x Aviatio n Services , LL C [hereinafter "Comlux" ] an dMOVE S th e Cour t t o permi t i t t o Withdraw it. s Reques t

fo r Hearing . 1 ) On Apri l 7 , 2011 , Comlu x requeste dahearin g i n th e matter

identifie da s FAA Cas e No . 2010-GL-ll-0109 . 2 ) On Apri l 13 , 2011 , th e Administrato r filed acomplain t

i n thi s matter . 3 ) O n Ma

y 12 , 2011 , th e partie s t o thi s actio n settle dth e matter . In ligh t o f th e settlemen t

o f thi s matter , w e reques t

tha t th e Administrativ e Law Judg e GRAN T thi s Motio n t o Withdraw an dDISMIS S thi s matter . RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTE D thi s 12t h da y o f May , 2011 . :- - :-.', . ;- a



## :':;<>T WASHINGTO N AVIATIO N GROUP , P C AND TH E LA W OFFICE S O FJASO N A DICKSTEIN

Jaso n Dickstei n /^ashingto n Aviatio n Group , P C an dth e Law Office s o f

Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3

Washington , D C 2000 7 Tel ; (202 ) 628-677 6 Attorne y fo

r Responden t

Comlu x Aviatio n Service s LLC RESPONDENT' S MOirO N T O WITHDRA W THF . REQUES T FORHEARIN G Pag e 1 Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e La w Office s o f Jaso n A - Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 605/19/201 1 09:4 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DMS 0002/00 2

BEFORE THE U S DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORlAllO N Administrativ e La

w Judg e Not

Ye t Assigne d
In th e matte r

o f Comlu x Aviatio n Services , LL C Respondent DM S No. : No t Ye t Assigne d FAA Docke t

No. : No t Ye t Assigne d FA A Cas e No. : 20 1 lGLn010 9 CERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E

Th e undersigne dhereb y certifie s thai sh e cause dth e attache d RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O WITHDRA W TH E REQUES T FO RHEARIN G t o b e fileda

t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y two-da y FedE x service , o n th e date indicate dbelow . Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Wilbur Wright Buildin g - Suite 2 W100 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 An dto b e serve do n th e person s a t th e addresse s liste dbelo w b y th e sam e metho da s th e filing method , on th e dat e indicate dbelow . Chri s G . Zurales , Senio rAttorne y Grea t Lake s Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , ( L 60018-469 6

Kat t Brig h Ma y 12 . 201 1 Dat e

CERTIFICAIEO FSERVIC E Washingto n Aviatio n Group , P C andth e La w Office s o f Jaso n A . Dickstei n 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suit e 50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 • Tel : 202-628-677 6
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

Harry Kletter and Alan L. Schroering, being the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Industrial Services of America,
Inc., hereby certify as of this 9th day of August, 2010, that the Form 10-Q for
the Quarter ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Industrial
Services of America, Inc.

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | /s/
 Harry Kletter                          
| |                                             
| | Harry
 Kletter, Chief Executive Officer     
| |                                             
| | /s/
 Alan L. Schroering                     
| |                                             
| | Alan L.
 Schroering, Chief Financial Officer

---
#### § 105-64.204 Can parents and guardians obtain access to records?

If you are the parent or guardian of a minor, or of a person judicially determined to be incompetent, you must provide full information about the individual of record. You also must properly identify yourself and provide a copy of the birth certificate of the individual, or a court order establishing guardianship, whichever applies.
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.
 Office of Management and Budget
 Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress. This report gives the status, as of June 1, 2000, of three rescission proposals and two deferrals contained in one special message for FY 2000. The message was transmitted to Congress on February 9, 2000. Rescissions (Attachments A and C) As of June 1, 2000, three rescission proposals totaling $128 million have been transmitted to the Congress. Attachment C shows the status of the FY 2000 rescission proposals. Deferrals (Attachments B and D) As of June 1, 2000, $502 million in budget authority was being deferred from obligation. Attachment D shows the status of each deferral reported during FY 2000. Information from Special Message The special message containing information on the rescission proposals and deferrals that are covered by this cumulative report is printed in the edition of the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     cited below: 65 FR 9017, Wednesday, February 23, 2000. Jacob J. Lew. Director.
 **Attachment A—Status of FY 2000 Rescissions**
(In millions of dollars)
Budgetary resourcesRescissions proposed by the President
128.0Rejected by the CongressPending before the Congress for more than 45 days
−128.0(available for obligation)Currently before the Congress for less than 45 days
 **Attachment B—Status of FY 2000 Deferrals**
(In millions of dollars)
Budgetary resourcesDeferrals proposed by the President
1,622.0Routine Executive releases through June 1, 2000
−1,120.4(OMB/Agency releases of $1,136.5 million, partially offset by a cumulative positive adjustment of $16.1 million)Overturned by the CongressCurrently before the Congress
501.6


[FR Doc. 00-15528 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 16, 2009

d0909 

# Order

September 16, 2009

138467

STACEY SHEIKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138467 COA: 277766 Saginaw CC: 06-058921-CL UNDERGROUND RAILROAD and VALERIE HOFFMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 16, 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.
355P15

#### State v. Derrick Aundra Huey

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-100)

1. Allowed 10/26/2015

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*

3. State’s PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3.
#### Anthony Keith COUNCIL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-1366

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed December 12, 2016

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief-Tallahassee, Criminal Appeals, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his revocation of probation on two grounds: Whether the trial *814court erred in failing to enter a written order revoking probation, and whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sentences that violate the statutory maximum in his related case, Council v. State, 1D15-4382. Because Appellant is being resentenced pursuant to our holding in 1D15-4382, we do not need to decide whether his sentences are illegal.

As to the first issue, under this court’s holding in Fowler v. State, 79 So.3d 868, 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), “[a] formal, written order of revocation is required even when the record clearly reflects the trial court’s intention to revoke probation and its reasons for doing so.” Here, because the trial court failed to enter a written order specifying the probationary conditions Appellant violated which justified revoking his probation, we reverse for the trial court to enter a formal, written order of revocation, after Appellant is resen-tenced.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### VILLAGE SQUARE CONDOMINIUM, etc., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 5D15-2387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 18, 2016.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 28, 2016.

Jacob A. Brainard, Scott C. Davis and Jacob Bair, of Business Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Alexzander D. Gonano, of Gonano & Harrell, Fort Pierce and Avri S. Ben-Hamo and Steven B. Greenfield, of Al-dridge & Pite, LLP, Boca Raton, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Village Square Condominium Association, Inc. (‘Village Square”) appeals from a final summary judgment finding that U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S.Bank”) qualified for safe harbor under section 718.116(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2014), which limits a first mortgagee’s liability for past-due condo association assessments. Village Square argues that U.S. Bank was not a first mortgagee because it was only the servicer of the loan, not the owner. U.S. Bank argues that it was a first mortgagee because it was the holder of the note and mortgage. This issue was recently addressed by the Second District Court of Appeal in *Brittany’s Place Condominium Association, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,*205 *807So.3d 794, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2267, 2016 WL 5807401 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 5, 2016). We agree with Judge Black’s well-reasoned opinion, which concluded that ownership of the note and mortgage is not required in order for a foreclosing party to limit its liability pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of section 718.116(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2014).

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
[Cite as Parks v. Webb , 2018-Ohio-1716.]

{¶1} On December 6, 2017, requester Michael Parks made a public records request to respondent Patricia Webb, Clerk, Pickaway County Board of Commissioners (PCBC) for the minutes of the December 5, 2017 PCBC meeting “in whatever format they are in at the time of this email.” (Response, Exh. A.) Webb provided Parks with a copy of the minutes in PDF format, although Webb kept the minutes in DOC (Microsoft Word) format. (Response, Exh. B.) On December 13, 2017, Parks responded: “The record sent is not what I requested.” ( Id .) On December 18, 2017, Pickaway County Administrator Brad Lutz emailed Parks that the requested records had been provided as required by law (Response, Exh. C.), incorporating by reference previous correspondence in which he advised that “[i]t is not appropriate nor required by sunshine law to send a document that can be edited, such as a Word document.” (Complaint at 4.) {¶2} On December 20, 2017, requester Michael Parks filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of timely access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). On March 22, 2018, Special Master Clark issued a report recommending that the court GRANT Parks’ claim for production of the requested records in the format they were kept by the office at the time of the request. {¶3} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) states, in part: “Either party may object to the report and recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk * * *.” No objections were MICHAEL R. PARKS

Requester

v.

PATRICIA WEBB

Respondent Case No. 2017-00995PQ

Judge Patrick M. McGrath

ENTRY ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTERCase No. 2017-00995PQ -2- ENTRY

filed by either party. The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the Special Master’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the Special Master’s report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and

conclusions of law contained therein. {¶4} Court costs are assessed against the respondent, and respondent is further ordered to make payment of twenty-five dollars to requester as recovery of his filing fee in this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK M. McGRATH Judge

Filed April 17, 2018 Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/18
AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC.
                           NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                                   EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  THIRTEEN WEEKS ENDED    TWENTY-SIX WEEKS ENDED
                                  November     November    November     November
                                  29, 1997     30, 1996    29, 1997     30, 1996
                                 ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------
<S>                              <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>      
Net income (loss) for            ($ 26,196)   ($  4,392)  $   1,153    $  49,209
computing earnings                                                    
per common share                                                      
                                                                      
Weighted average number            921,437      924,274     921,366      923,895
of common shares                                                      
outstanding during                                                    
each period                                                           
                                                                      
Net income per common            ($  0.028)   ($  0.005)  $   0.001    $   0.053
share                                                                
</TABLE>
#### § 105-55.005 Form of payment.

Claims may be paid in the form of money or, when a contractual basis exists, the General Services Administration may demand the return of specific property or the performance of specific services.
EXHIBIT 31.2 

I, Stephen C. Donnelly, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Emtec, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) for the registrant and wehave:

          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 registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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

          c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter ( the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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

          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 theregistrant'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 registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting. 

Date: July 16, 2007 

|   | /s/ Stephen C. Donnelly          Stephen C. DonnellyChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
No. 11-9366.

#### Shigemura *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 819

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation

AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime

Commission for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 819 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Maritime

3 Commission Authorization Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FED5 ERAL MARITIME COMMISSION.

6 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fed7 eral Maritime Commission—

8 (1) for fiscal year 2000, $15,685,000; and

9 (2) for fiscal year 2001, $16,312,000.

Passed the House of Representatives March 16,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
No. 92-7989.

#### Silva *v.*Stainer, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.