alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 110 A 1 7

Filed 22 December 2017

STEVEN HARRIS, Petitioner

v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Respondent

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 30(2) from the d ecision of a divided panel of
the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 79 8 S.E.2d 1 2 7 (201 7 ), affirming a final

decision dated 2 5 J anuary 201 6 issued by Administrative Law Judge Donald W.
Overby in the Office of Ad ministrative Hearings

. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13

December 2017

.

Law Offices of Michael C. Byrne, by Michael C. Byrne, for petitioner

- appellee

. Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by T amika L. Henderson , Assistant Attorney General, and Ryan Park, D eputy Solicitor General, for respondent

appellant

. Essex Richards, P.A., by Norris A. Adams, II, for North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, and Blanchard, Miller, Lewis & Isley, P.A., by E. Hardy Lewis, for North Carolina State Employees Association, amici curiae.

The McGuinness Law Firm, by J. Michael McGuinness, and Milliken Law, by Megan A. Milliken, for North Carolina Police Benevolent Association and Southern States Police Benevolent Association, amici curiae

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Eduardo RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10601.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 19, 2005.

Robert A. Bork, Esq., USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jason F. Carr, Esq., FPDNV—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant—Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Eduardo Rodriguez-Vazquez appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawfully entering the United States after having been previously deported in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Rodriguez-Vazquez’s Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentencing enhancement based on a prior felony conviction remains foreclosed after *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*419 F.3d 906, 915 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a district judge’s enhancement of a sentence, based on the fact of a prior conviction does not raise any Sixth Amendment problems).

*884Because Rodriguez-Vazquez was sentenced under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, and we cannot reliably determine from the record whether the sentence imposed would have been materially different had the district court known that the Guidelines were advisory, we remand to the district court to answer that question, and to proceed pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See Moreno-Hernandez,*at 915 (extending *Ameline’*s limited remand procedure to cases involving non-constitutional *Booker*error).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Agency employees at Iwakuni aid transition to improved medical care

By Tim Hoyle  DLA Disposition Services

                MCAS Iwakuni, Japan  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
March 24, 1997

No. 96-1034.

No. 96-1108.

#### Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. *v.*United States et al.; and Spice Entertainment Cos., Inc. *v.*Reno, Attorney General, et al.

Affirmed on appeals from D. C. Del. Reported below: 945 F. Supp. 772.
No. 47661.

#### Protests 47894-K, etc., of Olivier Straw Goods Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise consists of knotted sisal hats the same as those involved in Abstract 46497 and of hats or hoods of ramie and cellophane the same as those involved in Abstract 47291, the claim that they are dutiable at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           36630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 36630
<PP&E>                                            5686
<DEPRECIATION>                                   60000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  102316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3421
<OTHER-SE>                                       93415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    102316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 27125
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 31298
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3480)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3480)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .000
Exhibit 4.1

                               HOME DIRECTOR, INC.

                                January 10, 2008

Erick Richardson, Esq.
10900 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90024

     Re:  Issuance of Shares

Dear Mr. Richardson:

     This letter confirms our plan to issue to you 411,532 shares of our common
stock (the "Shares"), to be registered on Form S-8 with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in consideration of $66,256.71 of legal services not in
connection with any capital raising transaction or making a market in our
securities.

     Your signature below indicates your acceptance of the Shares for such
services, and confirms the accuracy of the following:

     (a) By reason of your business or financial experience or the business or
financial experience of your professional advisors who are unaffiliated with and
who are not compensated by Home Director, Inc. or any affiliate or selling agent
of Home Director, Inc., directly or indirectly, you can be reasonably assumed to
have the capacity to protect your own interests in connection with your
acquisition of the Shares.

     (b) You are acquiring the Shares for your own account and not with a view
to or for sale in connection with any distribution thereof, except as permitted
by applicable law or regulation.

     (c) You did not learn of the offer and sale of the Shares through the
publication of any advertisement. Regards,

                                        /s/ Michael Liddle
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Michael Liddle
                                        Chief Executive Officer

ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:




/s/ Erick Richardson
-------------------------------
Erick Richardson

<PAGE>
Form of Work Order



 Exhibit 10.II.H 
 SCHEDULE OF SERVICES 
 Brazil 
 Date: September 12, 2007 
 This Schedule of Services is issued pursuant to the Master Services
Agreement dated December 29, 2006 (the “Agreement”), between The Mosaic Company, a Delaware corporation, and Cargill, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, which Agreement is hereby incorporated into this Schedule of Services by
reference. 
  

	1.	Description of Services. Service Provider, Cargill Agricola S.A. will perform the following services for Mosaic Fertilizantes do Brasil S.A., Mosaic Fertilizantes
Ltda., and Fospar S.A.: 

  

						
	 Information Technology
	  	Attachment 1	  	$	 896.901
	 Human Resources
	  	Attachment 2	  	$	871.428
	 Procurement
	  	Attachment 3	  	$	51.000
	 Corporate Affairs
	  	Attachment 4	  	$	95.000
	 Office Services
	  	Attachment 5	  	$	213.979
	 Office Building (Condominium)
	  	Attachment 6	  	$	381.897
	 SSC (Shared Service Center)
	  	Attachment 7	  	$	135.558
	 Travel/Purchases
	  	Attachment 8	  	$	25.936
	 Law Department
	  	Attachment 9	  	$	0
	 Employees Association
	  	Attachment 10	  	$	43.193
	 Treasury
	  	Attachment 11	  	$	1.000
	 GOSC (Comm.Agreement)
	  	Attachment 12	  	$	525.235
	 TOTAL SERVICES:
	  		  	$	3.241.127
	 14.25% Service Tax
	  		  	$	538.613
	 TOTAL COST (after tax)
	  		  	$	3.779.740
		  		  	 	 









	2.	Term. 

 Service Provider will provide these
services to Mosaic for a period of 12 months commencing June 1, 2007 and expiring May 31, 2008. 
  

	3.	Compensation. 

 Service Provider will invoice
these services on a monthly basis. 
  

	4.	Special Provisions: None. 

  

			
	CARGILL AGRICOLA S.A.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  

	
	MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES DO BRASIL S.A.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  

	
	MOSAIC FERTILIZANTES LTDA.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  

	
	FOSPAR S.A.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  

	Its:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

JORDAN MERSON 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 116 DB 2015 (No. 57 RST 2015) 

Attorney Registration No. 310885 

(Out of State) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2015, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated August 19, 2015, is approved and it is ORDERED 

that Jordan Merson, who has been on Inactive Status, has never been suspended or 

disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
The Quantum Group, Inc.
File No. 000-31727


                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 The Quantum Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Noel J. Guillama, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 19, 2004                              By:  /S/ Noel J. Guillama
                                                       ---------------------
                                                       Noel J. Guillama
                                                       Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Quantum Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Quantum Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 122 

To provide for congressional approval of national monuments and restrictions 

on the use of national monuments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for congressional approval of national monuments 

and restrictions on the use of national monuments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Monuments 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

7 The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking 

10 ‘‘SEC. 2. That the’’ and inserting the following: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 122 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

2 ‘‘After obtaining congressional approval of the pro3 posed national monument and certifying compliance with 

4 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

5 4321 et seq.) with respect to the proposed national monu6 ment, the’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE. 

9 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement 

10 any restrictions on the public use of a national monument 

11 until the expiration of an appropriate review period (as 

12 determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for 

13 public input and congressional approval.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
December 7, 1950

No. 54960.

#### Superior Dowel Co. *v.*United States,

protest 143118-K.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
No. 96-5740.

#### Shelton *v.*Looker.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-7566
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERNEST LEE GRIMES, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-67-F, CA-96-127-7-F) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Lee Grimes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Grimes , Nos. CR-95-67-F, CA-96-127-7-F (E.D.N.C. Sept. 25, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Yaqub Hameed MUWAKKIL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-6232.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 22, 2005.

Decided July 12, 2005.

Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Yaqub Hameed Muwakkil appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint regarding prison conditions for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). After the district court entered its order, Muwakkil was transferred. Because Muwakkil sought only injunctive and declaratory relief, his subsequent transfer renders his appeal moot. *See Williams v. Griffin,*952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir.1991). Nonetheless, after a review of the record, we conclude that the district court incorrectly decided that Muwakkü’s complaint failed to state a claim. Accordingly, although we dismiss the appeal as moot, we note that the district court’s dismissal should not count as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2000). 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.*
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Part-Time Employment for Women

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Meredith, Jane L. 						*Part-Time Employment for Women : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 273*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1960,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5542,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Case No. 13,377.

#### STERN v. SCHONFIELD.

[3 Cin. Law Bul. (1878) 500.]

Circuit Court, S. D. Ohio.

Bankruptcy — Confession op Jcugmekt as Preference op Creditors.

[This was an action by L. Stern against Alexander Schonfield.]

Wright & Simon, for petitioner. .

W. M. Bateman and F. W. Wood, for defendant.

Before

SWING, District Judge.

In this case, Stern and others, as creditors of defendant, filed their petition in bankruptcy against him, and, as the act of bankruptcy, alleged that about the 1st of November, 1877, he confessed judgments in favor of Schonfield Bros. & Co. and Steinfield, with intent to prefer. They also filed a petition in the same case against those judgment creditors for an injunction to restrain them from enforcing a levy upon Schonfield’s goods. In January, 1S75, Steinfield loaned Schonfield a sum of money, and took a judgment note for it. In July, 1877, Schonfield Bros. & Co., having a large claim against Schonfield, loaned him $1,S00, and took two judgment notes for the whole indebtedness. In November, 1S77, a few days before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, Schonfield Bros. & Co. and Steinfield took judgment upon their notes, and levied execution upon Schonfield’s store. Petitioners moved for leave to amend their petition In bankruptcy so as to charge as a further act that Schonfield had given power of attorney to confess judgment with intent to prefer creditors.

THE COURT held: First. That within the meaning of the bankrupt act [of 1867 (14 Stat. 517)] the defendant, Schonfield, did not confess judgments as alleged; the taking of a judgment upon a power of attorney not being a confession of judgment within the meaning of the law.

Second. That petitioning creditors are not entitled to amend -so as to allege a new act of bankruptcy.

. Third. That in this case, if the notes and powers of attorney were given without intent to prefer, and without knowledge of the bankruptcy of the maker, the creditors are entitled to pursue their legal remedies thereon by judgment and levy, although the debtor may be bankrupt, and the creditors have knowledge of that fact the time of such judgment and levy.

Fourth. That as a matter of fact the powers of attorney were not given with intent to prefer in violation of the bankrupt law.

Both petitions were dismissed at the cost of the petitioning creditors.