alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                        16,225,322
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,520,741
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,426,191
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              21,488,685
<PP&E>                                        10,796,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,662,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28,546,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,080,306
<BONDS>                                          691,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          12,168
<OTHER-SE>                                    24,642,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28,546,922
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              10,151,162
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,663,907
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                63,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2,521,345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (726,920)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,794,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,794,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.29)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 333-13075, 333-103145 and 333-157973 on Form S-8 of our report dated
November 30, 2010, relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc., and the effectiveness of Rofin-Sinar
Technologies Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. for the year
ended September 30, 2010.

/s/ Deloitte &
Touche LLP
Detroit, MI
November 30, 2010

---
92 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

OREGON 

#43

$1.4 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#51

0.5% OF STATE GDP

0.2%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$324

PER RESIDENT 

#41

$0.8 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#41

13,091 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#42

$0.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and Construction: 4% Development: 6%

Service: 31%

Supplies and

Equipment: 59%

By Service 

Army

22%

Navy/Marines

23%

Air Force

16%

Other Defense

39%

Top Defense Contractors 

Vigor Industrial

EPIC Aviation

Teledyne Technologies

TTM Technologies

Saltchuk Resources, Inc.

Berkshire Hathaway

Bay West-Ahtna, JV LLC

Galois

Curtiss-Wright Corp.

DLX Enterprises LLC

(M = millions)

$101.0 M

$71.6 M

$70.5 M

$47.7 M

$36.7 M

$35.1 M

$26.6 M

$26.0 M

$21.1 M

$19.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$1.4

FY19

$1.0

$0.8 $0.8

FY20

$0.8

FY15

$0.7 $0.6 $0.6

FY14 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY21

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 11% Active Duty: 7%

Civilian: 23%

National Guard: 60%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

65%

Navy/Marines

11%

Air Force

23%

Other Defense

0%

$577.0 MILLION 13,091

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Multnomah 266 1,439 1,988 706 4,399

Marion 13 330 1,382 ND ND 

Klamath 106 285 936 0 1,327

Clackamas 29 176 646 393 1,244

Lane 50 142 372 288 852 

Umatilla 0 165 354 0 519 

Jackson ND 37 363 0 ND 

Clatsop 0 59 269 0 328 

Washington ND 17 252 0 ND 

Deschutes ND 33 197 0 ND 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

OREGON 

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Umatilla

Sherman

Wasco

Jackson

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Washington Umatilla

Yamhill

Lane Deschutes

Josephine Klamath

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Multnomah

Clackamas

Washington

Marion

Klamath

Deschutes

Umatilla

Yamhill

Lane

Josephine

(M = millions)

$207.5 M

$171.8 M

$117.8 M

$75.1 M

$61.3 M

$37.6 M

$27.4 M

$23.5 M

$22.6 M

$13.0 M

Multnomah

Marion

Klamath

Clackamas

Lane

Umatilla

Wasco

Sherman

Jackson

Clatsop

$236.7 M

$74.0 M

$62.1 M

$38.2 M

$30.5 M

$22.0 M

$13.7 M

$11.6 M

$10.2 M

$10.2 M

Klamath

Lane

Multnomah

Multnomah

Marion

Marion

Clackamas

Clackamas

Clatsop

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 93

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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5290 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5290

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain light absorbing 
                              photo dyes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain light absorbing 
                              photo dyes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LIGHT ABSORBING PHOTO DYES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Morpholine,4-[4,5-dihydro-4-
[3-[5-hydroxy-1-methyl-3- (4-morpholinylcarbonyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]-2-
propenylidene]-1-methyl-5-oxo-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]carbonyl]-, potassium 
salt; 1,4-benzenedisulfonic acid, 2-[4-[5-[1- (2,5-disulfophenyl)-1,5-
dihydro-3-[(methylamino)carbonyl]-5-oxo-4H-pyrazol-4-ylidene]-3-(2-oxo-
1-pyrrolidinyl)- 1,3-pentadienyl]-5-hydroxy-3-[(methylamino)carbonyl]-
1H-pyrazol-1-yl]-, pentapotassium salt) is amended by striking ``12/31/
2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
LOREDO v. CSX TRANSPORTATION v. Torres.

No. 297A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

George B. Mast, David F. Mills, Bradley N. Schulz, Smithfield, for Loredo, Wood & Berkau.

W.L. Allen, III, Greenville, Robert E. Ruegger, Raleigh, for Amelia Torres.

Frank J. Gordon, Raleigh, for CXS Transportation, Inc.

Patrick Flanagan, Charlotte, for Family Home & Garden & Horne.

*AMENDED*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of November 2005 by Plaintiffs for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiffs (Loredo, Wood & Berkau and Amelia Torres) shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of November 2005."
CARPENTER v. RATLIFF

No. COA05-271.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Anson (03CVD568).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0151

SCOTT LARSEN AND KAREN 

LARSEN,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

KEITH SAYERS AND DANIELLE 

SAYERS,

 Defendants and Appellees.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Peter M. Meloy, whose name appears next on the list of 

attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is 

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this April 2, 2024.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Brett Patrick Clark, Jeffrey Wade Dahood, Peter M. Meloy

04/02/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0151
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javares D. Streeter, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 164]

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered December 6, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that County Court erred in failing to charge the jury on the defenses of mistake of fact and intoxication and erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit testimony concerning prior uncharged crimes *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to address those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 *1292[6] [a]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to request jury instructions on the defenses of mistake of fact and intoxication. Viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his intent to commit the murder or the weapon possession charge, which requires possession of a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully against another person *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, that contention is without merit, and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). According to the testimony of both defendant and a prosecution witness, defendant pointed a gun at the back of the victim’s head and pulled the trigger. Although defendant testified that he did not believe that there was a round of ammunition in the chamber of the gun when he pulled the trigger and thus that he did not intend to kill the victim, he gave a different explanation in his statement to the police. In any event, the jury was entitled to discredit the testimony of defendant that he did not intend to kill the victim, and we conclude that the jury did not fail to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded *(see generally id.).*The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
STATE v. APPLE

No. COA04-1568

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Orange (03CRS51981, 03CRS51982, 03CRS51983, 03CRS51984, 03CRS51985, 03CRS51986, 03CRS51987, 03CRS51991, 03CRS51992, 03CRS51993, 03CRS51994, 03CRS51995, 03CRS51996, 03CRS51997, 03CRS51998, 03CRS52002, 03CRS52003, 03CRS52005, 03CRS52006, 03CRS52009, 03CRS52010, 03CRS52014, 03CRS52016, 03CRS52018, 03CRS52028, 03CRS52033, 03CRS52034, 03CRS52036, 03CRS52037, 03CRS52038, 03CRS52039, 03CRS52040, 03CRS52043, 03CRS52047, 03CRS52050, 03CRS52052, 03CRS52053, 03CRS52054, 03CRS52057, 03CRS52059, 03CRS52060, 03CRS52063, 03CRS52066, 03CRS52067, 03CRS52068, 03CRS52070, 03CRS52071, 03CRS52072, *73603CRS52073, 03CRS54480, 03CRS54481, 03CRS54486, 03CRS54489, 03CRS54490).

Cases reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5392 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5392

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mixtures of N-phenyl-N-
  ((trichloromethyl)thio)-benzenesulfonamide, calcium carbonate, and 
                              mineral oil.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Mixtures of N-phenyl-N-
  ((trichloromethyl)thio)-benzenesulfonamide, calcium carbonate, and 
                              mineral oil.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF N-PHENYL-N-((TRICHLOROMETHYL)THIO)-
              BENZENESULFONAMIDE, CALCIUM CARBONATE, AND MINERAL OIL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.38.31 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
/**
* DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
* See the following change record for more information,
* https://www.drupal.org/node/2815083
* @preserve
**/

(function (Drupal) {
  Drupal.theme.ajaxProgressBar = function ($element) {
    return $element.addClass('ajax-progress ajax-progress-bar');
  };
})(Drupal);
Teri Harvey LITTLE and Frank Donald Little, Jr. v. OMEGA MEATS I, INC., Thomas A. Cassano, and Ronald Lee Smith.

No. 438A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 16, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 615 S.E.2d 45 (2005), affirming a judgment entered 20 August 2003 by Judge Michael E. Helms directing a verdict in favor of defendants Omega Meats I, Inc. and Thomas A.

*495Cassano in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 December 2005.

Schoch & Schoch, by Arch K. Schoch IV, High Point, for plaintiff-appellants.

Horton and Gsteiger, P.L.L.C., by Urs R. Gsteiger, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellees Omega Meats I, Inc. and Thomas A. Cassano.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5394 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cobalt Boron. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cobalt Boron. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COBALT BORON. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Cobalt Boron (CAS No. 

68457–13–6) (provided for in 

subheading 8105.20.30) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5394 IH

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

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Rhonda E. HOLDEN v. John Alan HOLDEN.

No. 195P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

William Diehl, Jr., Charlotte, James W. Lea, III, Wilmington, for Rhonda E. Holden.

Benedict J. Del Re', Jr., for John Alan Holden.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of April 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."
42 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) 

Brad Hall & Associates $53.8 M

PKL Services $16.0 M

AERO Specialties $15.1 M

Tanadgusix Corp. (TC) $14.3 M

Photronics Inc. $7.0 M

Johnson Controls $6.9 M

General Dynamics $6.7 M

Winspear-Petra JV-2 $4.8 M

Unitech Composites Inc. $3.1 M

Dawn Enterprises $2.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

IDAHO

#48 #48 0.1% $355 #47 #44 #43

$0.6 B SPENT 

IN STATE

0.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

10,747 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$407.1 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

10,747

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Ada 80 1,031 2,820 697 4,628

Elmore 3,325 454 250 26 4,055

Kootenai ND 79 138 102

Bannock ND 14 130 136

Canyon ND ND 240 ND

Twin Falls ND ND 78 102

Jerome ND ND 124 ND

Bonneville 23 ND 87 ND

Nez Perce ND ND 95 ND

Clearwater ND 60 27 ND

Construction: 6% Research and 

Development: 5%

Service: 36% Supplies and 

Equipment: 53%

Active Duty: 32%

Civilian: 16%

National 

Guard: 42%

Reserve:10%

14%

8%

40%

38%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

44%

4%

52%

0%

$0.2 $0.2

$0.4

$0.2 $0.2

$0.1

$0.2 $0.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 43

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)

Bonner

Kootenai

Lewis

Blaine Canyon

Ada

Bonneville

Bingham

Twin Falls

FISCAL YEAR 2018 IDAHO

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Elmore

Bonneville

Ada

Kootenai

Bingham

Canyon

Lewis

Twin Falls

Bonner

Blaine

(M = millions)

$66.2 M

$57.9 M

$53.9 M

$16.4 M

$10.3 M

$2.1 M

$2.0 M

$1.1 M

$858.9 K

$652.8 K

Elmore

Ada

Kootenai

Bannock

Clearwater

Canyon

Bonneville

Twin Falls

Bonner

Latah

$212.4 M

$142.7 M

$9.7 M

$7.2 M

$5.2 M

$5.1 M

$4.2 M

$3.1 M

$3.0 M

$2.8 M

Bonner

Kootenai

Latah Clearwater

Elmore

Bannock

Canyon

Ada

Elmore

Bonneville

Twin Falls
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will still be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 10, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, August 10, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*. The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: July 5, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-14645 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
WOODARD v. VAN HARREVELD

No. COA04-1104

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed May 17, 2005

Certification Date June 6, 2005

Appeal from Wake (00CVS11122).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.