alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. William DAVIS

No. 400P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Davis, William.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 6th of November 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of November 2018 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 11th of June 2019."
#### Maimis-Knox Group, Ltd., Respondent, v Grand Central Zocalo, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Additional Counterclaim Defendants.

[771 NYS2d 888]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered April 23, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and dismissed the first counterclaim of defendants Grand Central Zocalo and Shapiro, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, the general contractor for construction at a restaurant to be operated at Grand Central Station by Zocalo and its principal, Shapiro, alleges breach of contract and nonpayment for work performed, seeking a balance due of $257,233.80. Defendants counterclaim, inter alia, that delays in completing the work, attributable to the additional counterclaim defendants, caused them four months worth of lost profits, estimated at more than $400,000.

In order to recover lost profits, the claimant must demonstrate that at the time the construction contract was executed, the parties contemplated economic loss as a potential basis for damages in the event of construction delays *(Kenford Co. v County of Erie,*73 NY2d 312 [1989]). Aside from the speculative nature of anticipated profits from a start-up restaurant business, the sole proof that the parties had contemplated Zocalo’s entitlement to economic loss in the event that construction was not timely completed is article 4 of the contract, which called for the job to be finished by a date certain. The agreement did not otherwise state that time was of the essence, or that damages for construction delays would include those related to eco*130nomic loss. Moreover, Zocalo offered no extrinsic evidence that the parties had ever discussed economic loss as a potential basis for damages in the event of construction delays. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.
No. 09-920.

#### Paul Simmons, et al., Petitioners v. William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

559 U.S. 1105, 130 S. Ct. 2428,

176 L. Ed. 2d 921,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3732.

May 3, 2010.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
NO. 12-22-00082-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BEATRICE PRIMEAUX, 

APPELLANT

V.

NINFA HELEN MEZA GARCIA,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). 

Beatrice Primeaux, acting pro se, perfected this appeal on March 8, 2022. The clerk’s 

record was filed on March 30 and the reporter’s record was filed on May 26. Appellant’s brief 

was due by June 27. On June 29, this Court notified Appellant that the brief was past due. We 

further notified Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a 

motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a brief 

and showing that Appellee has not suffered material injury thereby, is filed no later than July 11.

The July 11 deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a brief, a motion for leave to file 

a late brief, or a motion for extension of time.2 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

Opinion delivered July 20, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas, pursuant to 

a docket equalization order. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). 2 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all 

applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties 

represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 

(Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 20, 2022

NO. 12-22-00082-CV

BEATRICE PRIMEAUX, 

Appellant

V.

NINFA HELEN MEZA GARCIA,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Jefferson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 136,487)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of

prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be 

certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:34 PM

To: 'phil@toledoaerialmedia.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information



### February 12, 2015

Mr. Phil Myers Toledo Aerial Media, LLC

4114 Rode Garden Drive Toledo, OH 43623

Dear Mr. Myers:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0979). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft size a nd provide a copy of the manual.

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency sp ectrum. This information can be located in the

aircraft manual.

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Desc ribe the process used to determine if the UAS is airworthy and in sa fe condition for operation in the NAS.

 Your petition references the material listed belo w, however the material was not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Flight Manual

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by February 26, 2015. If we do not rece ive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,2 

### Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 5, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00224-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.D., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-52262-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Osborne

Before the Court is appellant’s notice of nonsuit which we construe as a 

motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this appeal. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1).

210224f.p05

/Leslie Osborne//

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.D. A 

CHILD

No. 05-21-00224-CV 

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-52262-

2016.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Nowell participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Amy Jolene Diamond recover her costs of this 

appeal from appellant Bernardo Rey Diamond.

Judgment entered this 5

th day of August, 2021.
ex102.htm


Exhibit 10.2




 








	 	
Delaware

	
    PAGE 1


	 	The First State	  










 


 


I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MERGER, WHICH MERGES:


 


"MMGH ACQUISITION, INC.", A DELAWARE CORPORATION,


 


WITH AND INTO "CONSONUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC." UNDER THE NAME OF "CONSONUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.", A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, AS RECEIVED AND FILED IN THIS OFFICE THE TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, A.D. 2011, AT 4:22 O'CLOCK P.M.


 


A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 





 


 




  





1











  






 


 



	 	 	





 


 



CERTIFICATE OF MERGER


OF


MMGH ACQUISITION, INC.,


A DELAWARE CORPORATION,


INTO


CONSONUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,


A DELAWARE CORPORATION












Pursuant to Section 251 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersigned hereby executes this Certificate of Merger:







I.







The names of each of the constituent corporations to the merger are MMGH Acquisition, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (“Acquisition”), and Consonus Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (“Consonus”).







II.







An Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Plan of Merger”) has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporations in accordance with Section 252 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.







III.







The name of the surviving corporation is Consonus Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Surviving Corporation”).







IV.







The Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of Consonus in effect immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Merger shall be the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the Surviving Corporation.







V.







The executed Plan of Merger is on file at the principal office of the Surviving Corporation located at 301 Gregson Drive, Cary, NC 27511.







VI.







The merger is to become effective on February 28, 2011.












VII.







A copy of the executed Plan of Merger will be furnished by the Surviving Corporation, on request and without cost, to any stockholder of any constituent corporation.







[Signatures commence on the following page.]


 




  





2











  











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, as the Surviving Corporation of the merger, has caused this Certificate of Merger to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 25th  day of


February, 2011.


 




	 	
CONSONUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,


a Delaware corporation

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Nana Baffour	 
	 	Name: 	Nana Baffour	 
	 	Title:	
Executive Chairman

	 
	 	 	 	 








































































SIGNATURE PAGE TO CERTIFICATE OF MERGER




3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 10, 2010 

y0603 

Order 

 

June 10, 2010 

139628 & (19) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139628 

 COA: 289375 

Alger CC: 06-001740-FC 

DONALD JAMES GATISS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of March 11, 2010, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the May 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals. On order 

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again 

considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

VACATE the December 13, 2007 order of the Alger Circuit Court, and we REMAND 

this case to that court to reconsider the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment. A 

trial court, in its discretion, may generally strike pleadings containing “redundant, 

immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, or indecent matter.” MCR 2.115(B). But the court 

may not dismiss a defendant’s motion for relief from judgment merely for failure to 

comply with court rules; rather, the court must adjudicate the motion or return it “with a 

statement of reasons for its return.” MCR 6.502(D). On remand, the court shall specify 

what portions of the defendant’s pleadings were stricken as immaterial, impertinent, or 

scandalous. The court shall adjudicate the portions that merely failed to conform to the 

court rules or return the pleadings with an explanation for their return. In adjudicating 

the relevant portions of the motion, the court must “include a concise statement of the 

reasons for the denial,” MCR 6.504(B)(2), or “set forth in the record its findings of fact 

and its conclusions of law, and enter an appropriate order disposing of the motion,” MCR 

6.508(E). Although the court’s reasoning may again incorporate the prosecutor’s 

response by reference, we note that the prosecutor did not respond to all of the 

defendant’s arguments for relief; accordingly, the court must dispose of the defendant’s 

remaining relevant arguments, if any, without merely referring to the prosecutor’s 

response. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction.
STATE of North Carolina v. Zachary Allen BLANKENSHIP

No. 131P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Blankenship, Zachary Allen.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of May 2018 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:

*99"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DION THOMAS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-176-F; CA-04-864-F) Submitted: September 28, 2005 Decided: December 8, 2005 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dion Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant 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: Dion Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Leggio, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 875]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered January 23, 1996, convicting him of attempted rape in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement authorities. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, Robert C. Wilkie is relieved as attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

*638Ordered that James T. Duggan, Esq., of 15 Willow Trail, Carmel, N. Y. 10512, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

Based upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that arguable issues exist with respect to, *inter alia,*whether the defendant’s statements made to the police were voluntarily obtained and whether the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. Under the circumstances, the motion of the defendant’s assigned counsel to be relieved as counsel on this appeal is granted and new appellate counsel is assigned *(see, People v Casiano,*67 NY2d 906). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Description of Director Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.20 
 Orthofix International N.V. 
 Director Compensation Policy 

Directors are traditionally elected each year at the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders, usually held in May or June. Other director
appointments occur from time to time as determined by the Board, for instance, in the event of vacancies on the Board resulting from a director’s death or resignation. 
 The Board has adopted a director compensation philosophy providing for a 50th percentile goal for total director compensation. This philosophy is consistent with the total compensation
philosophy applied to the compensation levels of the executive officers. Non-employee directors receive a mix of cash and equity-based compensation as consideration for serving on the Board. Current Board compensation levels were
determined by the Board based upon consideration of Towers Watson’s 2008 compensation analysis, which included a competitive market analysis to determine competitive compensation levels for our directors. Towers Watson’s analysis
concluded that the Board’s cash fees were in line with its philosophy, but that our equity-based compensation for directors was below our peer group as compared to our preferred percentile goals. 

Upon election or appointment to the Board, each Board member is currently entitled to an annual fee of $60,000 for his services, pro-rated
for any partial year of service. Chairmen of Committees are entitled to additional compensation ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 for serving in those capacities, and the Chairman of the Board receives an annual fee of $220,000 in his role as
chairman. We do not pay any other meeting fees. Each director may elect at the time of election to the Board or at a subsequent increase in fees to have their director fee paid either in U.S. Dollars or in the director’s local
currency. If a director does not elect to have his director fee paid in his local currency, the Company will pay the director fee in U.S. Dollars. 
 Directors also receive grants of stock options under the 2004 LTIP. These grants typically include (i) a grant of 30,000 options, granted on the date of such director’s first election to
the Board, with such options generally vesting in one-fifth increments over a 5-year period (so long as a director remains on the Board and subject to earlier vesting in the event of a change in control), and (ii) a grant of 5,000 options,
granted on the date of any re-election or re-appointment to the Board, with such options generally vesting in one-third increments on the anniversary of each grant (so long as a director remains on the Board and subject to earlier vesting in the
event of a change in control). Directors are also eligible to participate in our SPP. In 2009, non-employee directors each received a grant of 3,000 options instead of the 5,000 option grant typically provided, and a one-time supplemental
fee of $15,000 to reflect the lower stock option grant amount. In 2010, non-employee directors did not receive any grant of options, and no additional supplemental fee was provided.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dante Lorenzo ROSS

No. COA18-652

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 21, 2019

NO ERROR.
### TDCJ Offender Details 

# tyM0h?^1 of2

!• TDCJ Home 

# iijmi.iAmjMJMJiAmiuHwmjia EH New Offender Search 

# Offender Information Details
Return to Search list

SID Number: TDCJ Number: Name: Race: Gender: DOB: Maximum Sentence Date: 

### Current Facility: Projected Release Date: Parole Eligibility Date: 

### OffenderVisitation Eligible: 07374949 01431218 

### MORRIS.JOHN EDWARD W M 1962-08-24 2034-07-06 RAMSEY I 2034-07-06 2019-07-06 NO 

### The offenderis temporarily ineligible for visitation. Please call the offender's unit for any additional information. 

### The visitation information is updatedonce daily during weekdays and multiple timesperday on visitation days.
SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: 

### Scheduled Release Type: Scheduled Release Location: 

# ParoleReviewInformation Offense History: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. Will be determined when release date is scheduled. Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense

Date 

### ~„ Sentence ~ . ~ Kl Sentence (YY-MM- 

## Offense n . County CaseNo. __\

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=07374949 3/4/2015
No. 09-7280.

#### Paul Farnsworth, Petitioner v. Larry McNeil, et al.

559 U.S. 1059, 130 S. Ct. 2367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3049.

176 L. Ed. 2d 578,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1122, 130 S. Ct. 1074, 175 L. Ed. 2d 901, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 324.