alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3655

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derek Michael Caquelin

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas

____________ 

Submitted: November 15, 2021

Filed: April 6, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derek Caquelin pled guilty to one count of possession of less than 50 

kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) 

and (b)(1)(D). The district court1 varied upward five months from the United States 

1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Arkansas. 
-2- 

Sentencing Guidelines range when sentencing Caquelin to 12 months of 

imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. Caquelin appeals his 

sentence, arguing the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

We conclude the appeal is moot. Caquelin was released from prison while this 

appeal was pending and his appeal challenged only the length of his now-completed 

prison term, so no additional relief may be granted. See Owen v. United States, 930 

F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding since the defendant “has been released from 

prison, the court cannot grant any effectual remedy” in response to his sentencing 

challenge). If Caquelin were to prevail on the merits of his appeal, the district court 

would not have discretion to impose a shorter term of supervised release. See 21 

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) (requiring minimum of two years supervised release). In any 

event, Caquelin did not dispute any aspect of his supervised release term. See Owen, 

930 F.3d at 990−91 (noting “an unexpired, unchallenged term of supervised release 

does not sustain an actual controversy”). 

For these reasons, Caquelin’s appeal is dismissed as moot. 

______________________________
Stacy CUNNINGHAM v. James RILEY, Sr., in his capacity as a Mecklenburg County Deputy Sheriff, James Pendergraph, Sheriff of Mecklenburg County.

No. 246P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Pamela A. Hunter, Charlotte, for Stacy Cunningham.

Scott D. MacLatchie, Charlotte, for Riley, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 10th day of May 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of May 2005 by Plaintiff 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 18th day of August 2005."
18 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Boeing $2.1 B

Austal $1.5 B

Northrop Grumman $618.7 M

SAIC $612.7 M

Redstone Defense Systems $295.0 M

M1 Support Services $282.4 M

KBR $270.0 M

L3 Technologies $246.8 M

Leidos $212.7 M

Parsons Corp. $206.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

ALABAMA

#9 #4 3.1% $3,150 #11 #18 #11

$15.4 B SPENT

IN STATE

6.9% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $12.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

51,588 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$3.2 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$3.2 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

51,588

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Madison 724 13,582 498 706 15,510

Montgomery 2,874 3,109 2,663 2,268 10,914

Dale 3,685 2,217 52 133 6,087

Calhoun 59 3,375 1,007 414 4,855

Jefferson 298 447 1,892 1,923 4,560

Mobile 37 765 853 621 2,276

Houston 44 41 356 133 574

Tuscaloosa 13 79 166 248 506

Lee 55 21 153 233 462

Coffee ND 179 275 ND ND

Construction: 1%

Research and

Development: 12%

Service: 44%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 43%

Active Duty: 15%

Civilian: 47%

National 

Guard: 24%

Reserve: 14%

45%

15%

6%

34%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

73%

2%

18%

7%

$9.4

$8.0 $7.9 $8.4 $8.5 $9.1 $8.6

$12.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 19

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Limestone

Calhoun Jefferson

Talladega Tuscaloosa

Coffee

Dale

Mobile

FISCAL YEAR 2018 ALABAMA

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Madison

Mobile

Dale

Montgomery

Calhoun

Tuscaloosa

Talladega

Jefferson

Limestone

Coffee

(M = millions, B = billions)

$8.8 B

$1.5 B

$795.4 M

$261.6 M

$170.5 M

$89.8 M

$78.7 M

$77.3 M

$75.9 M

$53.7 M

Madison

Lee

Montgomery

Coffee

Dale

Houston

Madison

Montgomery

Dale

Calhoun

Jefferson

Mobile

Houston

Lee

Tuscaloosa

Coffee

$1.5 B

$599.9 M

$418.8 M

$237.5 M

$158.9 M

$90.9 M

$22.3 M

$16.4 M

$16.2 M

$14.2 M

Montgomery

Madison

Jefferson Calhoun

Tuscaloosa

Mobile
STATE v. DERBECK

No. COA05-59.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (02CRS214614, 02CRS214616, 02CRS214981).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
70 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

S&K Technologies $18.0 M

Fort Peck Manufacturing & West Electronics JV $17.4 M

Swank Enterprises $17.3 M

T & L Sales $17.3 M

Integrated Security Solutions $10.3 M

2101 LLC $7.8 M

Montana State University $6.0 M

CM Manufacturing $5.8 M

Resodyn Acoustic Mixers $4.9 M

BDS Supply $4.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

MONTANA

#49 #42 0.1% $511 #48 #48 #46

$0.5 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.1% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

9,019 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.3 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$346.8 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

9,019

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Cascade 3,201 879 995 74 5,149

Lewis and Clark ND 347 1,002 285

Yellowstone 36 20 315 296 667

Missoula 30 25 184 147 386

Gallatin ND ND 231 ND

Flathead ND ND 181 14

Silver Bow ND 19 71 42

Park ND ND 79 ND

Valley ND 45 31 ND

Custer ND ND 73 ND

Construction: 10%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Service: 35%

Supplies and

Equipment: 49%

Active Duty: 37%

Civilian: 16%

National 

Guard: 38%

Reserve: 10%

40%

5%

32%

23%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

41%

2%

56%

1%

$0.3

$0.2

$0.1

$0.2

$0.1 $0.1

$0.1

$0.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 71

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Flathead Roosevelt Pondera

Lake Richland

Lewis and Clark

Cascade

Missoula

Silver Bow

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MONTANA

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Cascade

Lake

Gallatin

Richland

Flathead

Missoula

Pondera

Silver Bow

Lewis and Clark

Roosevelt

(K = thousands, M = millions)

$79.9 M

$19.4 M

$19.3 M

$17.5 M

$17.0 M

$10.0 M

$7.4 M

$6.7 M

$5.6 M

$3.9 M

Cascade

Lewis and Clark

Yellowstone

Missoula

Flathead

Lincoln

Gallatin

Silver Bow

Valley

Park

$240.6 M

$55.7 M

$13.0 M

$8.1 M

$5.4 M

$5.1 M

$4.6 M

$4.4 M

$4.1 M

$874.6 K

Lincoln

Flathead Valley

Cascade

Missoula

Yellowstone

Gallatin

Park

Silver Bow

Gallatin

Lewis and Clark
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Helicos BioSciences Corporation (the "Company") for the
period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we Stephen J. Lombardi, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company
and Stephen P. Hall, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to our knowledge that:



Dated: November 14, 2008

/s/ STEPHEN J. LOMBARDI Stephen J. Lombardi President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: November 14, 2008

/s/ STEPHEN P. HALL Stephen P. Hall Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
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

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kenmar Global Trust for the period January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                          
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    David K. Spohr
|Name:                 |  | David K. Spohr                                           
|Title:                |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|                      |  | (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer)                 
|                      |  | Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,                    
|                      |  | Managing Owner of                                        
|                      |  | Kenmar Global Trust                                      

Date: March 26, 2009
STATE v. BLOOMFIELD.

No. COA04-1424.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. New trial.
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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      as of, and for, the periods presented in the  Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November      6, 2008 |   |  /s/ G. Hunter Haas,      IV                                           G.      Hunter Haas, IVExecutive      Vice President, Chief Investment Officer, InterimChief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
16 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

ALABAMA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.8 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

56,450

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

 Military

Madison 16,808 1,083 14,695

Montgomery 11,710 4,678 3,480

Dale 8,425 5,552 2,638

Calhoun 4,694 83 3,476

Jefferson 3,903 434 546

Mobile 2,258 114 808

Lee 716 83 28

Tuscaloosa 560 18 94

Houston 457 46 38

Coffee 398 ND 132

* Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

74%

2%

18%

6%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

National Guard/

Reserve: 32%

Active Duty: 21%

Civilian: 47%

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions) 

Boeing $837.3 M

Austal $581.5 M

SAIC $573.8 M

L-3 Communications $522.6 M

Wyle Laboratories $380.0 M

Redstone Defense Systems $302.5 M

Northrop Grumman $257.4 M

Intuitive Research and Technology $256.7 M

Parson $250.0 M

Torch Technology $235.8 M

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

$8.4

$8.0

$9.0

$7.8

$8.5

$8.7

$8.1

$9.0 54%

11%

9%

26%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Service: 56%

Research and 

Development: 11%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 32%

Construction: 1%

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 17

(M=millions)

#10

$10.9 B

SPENT IN STATE

#5

5.2% OF STATE GDP

2.9%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$2,235

PER RESIDENT

#9

$8.1 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#20

56,450 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#11

$2.8 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 A L A B A M A 

Madison County

$1.5 B

Montgomery County

$454.9 M

Dale County 

$397.9 M

Calhoun County

$214.6 M

Jefferson County

$83.1 M

Mobile County

$69.9 M

Lee County

$8.8 M

Tuscaloosa County

$8.8 M

Houston County

$6.4 M

Coffee County

$6.3 M

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Madison County

$5.4 B

Mobile County

$857.5 M

Dale County

$850.3 M

Montgomery County

$267.0 M

Calhoun County

$222.7 M

Limestone County

$64.8 M

Jefferson County

$63.3 M

Tuscaloosa County

$57.9 M

Baldwin County

$47.7 M

Dallas County

$37.5 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active

Lee

(M=millions B=billions)

Limestone 

Calhoun

Jefferson 

Dale

Mobile 

Tuscaloosa 

Baldwin 

Dallas 

Madison

Montgomery

(M=millions B=billions)

Calhoun

Jefferson 

Dale

Mobile 

Tuscaloosa 

Coffee 

Madison

Montgomery

Houston
Exhibit
4.2

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
 LIPMAN ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING LTD.
2004 SHARE OPTION PLAN

Pursuant to Section 14 of the
2004 Share Option Plan of Lipman Electronic Engineering Ltd. (the
"Share Option Plan"), the Board of Directors
hereby amends Section 3 of the Share Option Plan (the
"Amendment") so that it reads in its entirety
as follows:

"3. Stock Subject to
the Plan. Subject to the provisions of Section 11 hereunder, the
maximum aggregate number of Shares which may be subject to Option and
sold under this Plan is 850,000 (eight hundred fifty thousand) Shares.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum number of Shares that may be
issued through Incentive Stock Options is 200,000 (two hundred
thousand) Shares. The Shares may be authorized but unissued, or
reacquired, Ordinary Shares.

If an Option
expires or becomes unexercisable without having been exercised in full,
the unpurchased Shares which were subject thereto shall become
available for future grant or sale under the Plan. However, Shares that
have actually been issued under the Plan, upon exercise of an Option,
shall not be returned to the Plan and shall not become available for
future distribution under this Plan."

Except as
expressly set forth in this Amendment, all other provisions of the
Share Option Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.
PAKE v. FRY

No. COA05-325.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Carteret (04CVS101).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**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 quarterly period ended February 24, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay D.Nielsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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/ Jay D. Nielsen                      |
|     |  | Jay D. Nielsen*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

  

Date: April 5, 2007
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Idaho General Mines, Inc., a Idaho Corporation, (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Idaho General Mines, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Idaho General Mines, Inc.



Date:  May 14, 2004

/s/ James H. Moore

________________________________

James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer











#
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 521 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 521

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LANE EVANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lane Evans 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 521

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
# L_2017113EN.01006202.xml

| 29.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 113/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 113/62

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 183 of 8 July 2016
  )

On page 56, Article 69(2) and (3):

for:

‘2.   If the the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted before 29 January 2019, decisions given after that date shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Chapter IV as long as the rules of jurisdiction applied comply with those set out in Chapter II.

3.   Chapter III shall apply only to partners who register their partnership or who specify the law applicable to the property consequences of their registered partnership after 29 January 2019.’,

read:

‘2.   If the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted before 29 January 2019, decisions given on or after that date shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Chapter IV as long as the rules of jurisdiction applied comply with those set out in Chapter II.

3.   Chapter III shall apply only to partners who register their partnership or who specify the law applicable to the property consequences of their registered partnership on or after 29 January 2019.’.

---
STATE v. Ervin L. STREATER.

No. 185P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth W. Honeycutt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of April 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2005."