alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00192-CR

____________________

RANDY BAUER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR32082

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The trial court sentenced Randy Bauer on May 3, 2018. On June 22, 2018, the 

trial court granted Bauer’s motion for new trial. On June 27, 2018, Bauer’s counsel 

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court granted Bauer’s motion 

for new trial. “Granting a new trial restores the case to its position before the former 

trial[.]” See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no final, appealable judgment, 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State, 931 S.W.2d 640, 643-44 

(Tex. App.–Dallas 1996, no pet.). Because the trial court has granted a new trial, we 
2

suspend the requirement that the appellant personally sign the motion to dismiss. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 2; see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on July 24, 2018

Opinion Delivered July 25, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
# L_2017027DE.01016901.xml

| 1.2.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 27/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2017

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 27/169

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2016/799 der Kommission vom 18. März 2016 zur Durchführung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 165/2014 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Festlegung der Vorschriften über Bauart, Prüfung, Einbau, Betrieb und Reparatur von Fahrtenschreibern und ihren Komponenten

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 139 vom 26. Mai 2016
  )

Auf Seite 427, Seite 428 und Seite 429, Anlage 13 Anhang 1 Tabelle, jeweils Kopfzeile Spalte 3:

Anstatt:

„Empfohlene Klassifizierung“

muss es heißen:

„Datenklassifizierung (persönlich/nicht persönlich)“.

Auf Seite 463, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.1 Reihe D13a Spalte 3:

Anstatt:

„16 Bits ± 1 bit of FM0 coded ’1’ bits“

muss es heißen:

„16 Bits ± 1 Bit FM0-kodierter ’1’-Bits“.

Auf Seite 464, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.1 Reihe D13c Spalte 3 Satz 1:

Anstatt:

„Die RSU (REDCR) darf nach dem End- Flag maximal 8 Bits übertragen.“

muss es heißen:

„Die RSU (REDCR) darf nach dem Endmerker maximal 8 Bits übertragen.“

Auf Seite 466, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.2 Reihe U13b Spalte 3 Satz 1:

Anstatt:

„Die DSRC-VU darf nach dem End-Flag maximal 8 Bits übertragen.“

muss es heißen:

„Die DSRC-VU darf nach dem Endmerker maximal 8 Bits übertragen.“

Auf Seite 477, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.5 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 479, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.6 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 480, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.7 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 481, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.9 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 483, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.11 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 484, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.13 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 486, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.14 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 487, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.15 Reihe 1 Spalte 4, Seite 489, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.16 Reihe 1 Spalte 4:

Anstatt:

„Start-Flag“

muss es heißen:

„Anfangsmerker“.

Auf Seite 479, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.5 Reihe 22 Spalte 4, Seite 479, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.6 Reihe 9 Spalte 4, Seite 480, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.7 Reihe 9 Spalte 4, Seite 482, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.9 Reihe 30 Spalte 4, Seite 484, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.11 Reihe 15 Spalte 4, Seite 485, Tabelle 14.13 Reihe n+3 Spalte 4, Seite 486, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.14 Reihe 14 Spalte 4, Seite 488, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.15 Reihe 116 Spalte 4, Seite 489, Anlage 14 Tabelle 14.16 Reihe 116 Spalte 4:

Anstatt:

„End-Flag“

muss es heißen:

„Endmerker“.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Paladin Realty Income Properties, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certifies, to his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/ John A. Gerson                                            
|John A. Gerson                                                
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                  

November 13, 2007
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**




I,
      David
      A. Chaput, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
      Form
      10-Q of General Moly, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of General Moly, Inc.




Dated:
      May 7, 2008




By: /s/
      David A. Chaput


Name: David
      A.
      Chaput


Title: Chief
      Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5013 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on artichokes, prepared or 

preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on artichokes, 

prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic 

acid, not frozen. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ARTICHOKES, PREPARED OR PRESERVED OTH4 ERWISE THAN BY VINEGAR OR ACETIC ACID, 

5 NOT FROZEN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.89 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5013 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
STATE v. LANE

No. COA04-75

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 19, 2004

Certification Date November 8, 2004

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN C. LEVI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 19

- 35282

D.C. No. 3:18

- cv

- 00282

- RRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Steven C. Levi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment sua sponte

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Omar v. Sea

- Land

Service, Inc. , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS19

- 35282

The district court properly dismissed Levi’s action for failure to state a claim

because neither a State nor a state agency is a person for purposes of § 1983

liability and Levi failed to allege any facts showing a con stitutional violation. See

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997) ( Section 1983

“ creates no remedy against a State” ); Howlett v. Rose , 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (a

governmental agency that is an arm of the state is not a person f or purposes of

§ 1983); Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. , 518 U.S. 415, 432 (1996) (“The

Seventh Amendment

. . . governs proceedings in federal court, but not in state

court

. ”)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9 th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review

and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment

would be futile); see also Sparling v. Hoffman Const. Co., Inc. , 864 F.2d 635 , 638

(9th Cir. 1988) (court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to state a claim without

notice or an opportunity to respond where plaintiff cannot possibly win relief).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9 th Cir. 2009).

Levi’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.

See Kirshner v. Uniden Corp . of Am. , 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988)19

- 35282

(“Papers not filed with the district court or admitted into evidence by that court are

not part of the clerk’s record and cannot be part of the record on appeal.”). Levi’s

motion to accept supplemental brief ( Docket Entry No. 18) is granted.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of National Beef Packing Company, LLC (the Company)on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 26, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|     |  |                                         |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ John R. Miller                      |
|     |  | John R. Miller*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: January 9, 2006
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Lianyun Han, Chief Executive Officer of NUTRASTAR INTERNATIONAL INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 14th day of May 2010.

/s/ Lianyun Han   Lianyun Han 
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT IN RE: NOMINATION PETITION OF DENNIS LEE AS DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE OF CITY COMMISSIONER PETITION OF: DENNIS LEE : : : : : : : No. 225 EAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED .
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 494

AN ACT

To provide for the conditional conveyance of any interest 

retained by the United States in St. Joseph Memorial 

Hall in St. Joseph, Michigan.

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

•HR 494 EH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF RETAINED INTEREST IN ST. 

2 JOSEPH MEMORIAL HALL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the terms and condi4 tions of subsection (c), the Administrator of General Serv5 ices shall convey to the city of St. Joseph, Michigan, by 

6 quitclaim deed, any interest retained by the United States 

7 in St. Joseph Memorial Hall. 

8 (b) ST. JOSEPH MEMORIAL HALL DEFINED.—In this 

9 section, the term ‘‘St. Joseph Memorial Hall’’ means the 

10 property subject to a conveyance from the Secretary of 

11 Commerce to the city of St. Joseph, Michigan, by quit12 claim deed dated May 9, 1936, recorded in Liber 310, at 

13 page 404, in the Register of Deeds for Berrien County, 

14 Michigan. 

15 (c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The conveyance 

16 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the following 

17 terms and conditions: 

18 (1) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the 

19 conveyance under subsection (a), the city of St. Jo20 seph, Michigan, shall pay $10,000 to the United 

21 States. 

22 (2) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—

23 The Administrator may require such additional 

24 terms and conditions for the conveyance under sub-
3

•HR 494 EH

1 section (a) as the Administrator considers appro2 priate to protect the interests of the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 494

AN ACT

To provide for the conditional conveyance of any inseph Memorial Hall in St. Joseph, Michigan. terest retained by the United States in St. Jo-
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4989 

To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel single-piece exhaust gas 

manifolds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel singlepiece exhaust gas manifolds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAINLESS STEEL SINGLE-PIECE EXHAUST GAS 

4 MANIFOLDS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HR 4989 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Cast stainless steel singlepiece exhaust gas manifolds, 

suitable for use solely or 

principally with spark-ignition internal combustion engines and certified by the 

importer as capable of withstanding exhaust gas temperatures of 900 degrees 

Centigrade or higher (provided for in subheading 

8409.91.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________
No. 02

- 21

- 00246

- CV

___________________________

AND 

### L ONE 

### T REE 

### R ESOURCES 

### & C ONSULTING 

### , I NC



### . , Appellant

V



### .
P ERSEPOLIS 

### , I NC 

### ., F RANKFORD 

### G ATEWAY 

### LLC, M OHA MAD 

### ‘ M O 

### ’ R EZA 

### K AEINI 

### , D ANIELA 

### K

AEINI 

### , A LI 

### A. I RANZAD 

### & A THENA 

### L ABELLE 

### , Appellees

M OHAMAD 

### ‘ M O 

### ’ R EZA 

### K AEINI AND 

### D ANIELA 

### K AEINI 

### , Appellant s

V



### .
F ARZIN 

### A SFSHAR 

### , Appellee2 On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 9283

- 367

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J. Per Cur iam Memorandum Opinion3 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered the parties ’ “Agreed Dismissal of Appeal.” It is the court ’ s opinion that the motion s h ould be granted in p art and denied in part ; therefore, w e

set aside the trial court ’s judgme nt without regard to the merits and remand this case

to the trial court to render judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)( 2 )(B); Innovative Off ice Sy s., Inc. v. Johnson , 911 S.W. 2d 387, 388
(Tex. 1995). Because we cannot both set aside the trial court’s judgment and dismiss
the appeal, we deny the motion as to the parties’ request that we dismiss the appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d), (f); La ntana Ridge Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. SJWTX, Inc.
,
No. 03

- 19

- 00303

- CV, 2021 WL 904865, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 10, 2021, no
pet.) (mem. op. on reh’g).
Each party must bear its own costs of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curia m

Delivered : December 30, 2021
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5063 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acephate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Mr. SESTAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acephate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ACEPHATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.68 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Acephate) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
MCC OUTDOOR, LLC d/b/a Fairway Outdoor Advertising Triangle East v. THE TOWN OF FRANKLINTON BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

No. 268P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for Town of Franklin Bd. of Comm.

Betty S. Waller, Cary, for MCC Outdoor.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 2nd day of June 2005 by Petitioner in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the *540following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
Exhibit 35.13  LOGO

Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte,
NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2018, by and among DEUTSCHE
MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Benchmark 2018-B1 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-B1 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall
have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of
Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through
December 31, 2018 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGO ___________________________________________ Leslie Hayton Managing Director Wells Fargo Bank  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

LOGO
STATE of North Carolina v. Ellen Monica ROBERSON.

No. 126P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 23, 2004.

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

John Bryson, High Point, for Roberson.

Prior report: ___ N.CApp. ___, 592 S.E.2d 733.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 18th day of March 2004 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of March 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of March 2004 by Attorney General 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 23rd day of March 2004."