alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Ted S. Smith, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures****andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  October 20, 2005 | By:    |   /s/ TED S. SMITH         |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                              |   |   Ted S. Smith             |
|                              |   |   Chief Accounting Officer |

 

----
STATE v. SIMPSON.

No. COA05-534.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (01CRS15210, 01CRS58516, 01CRS58517, 01CRS59758).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
In re J.D.S., A Minor Child. appealed by John Lee SANDOVAL.

No. 511P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Susan J. Hall, Fayetteville, for John Lee Sandoval.

Lori W. Rosbrugh, Wilmington, for Department of Social Services.

Jana Lucas, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (Father) on the 9th day of September 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina 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 3rd day of November 2005."
# L_2017092EN.01009901.xml

| 6.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 92/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 92/99

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/651

of 3 April 2017

appointing a member, proposed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Dutch Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Ms A. (Annemiek) JETTEN (Mayor of Sluis) was proposed, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate on the basis of which Ms A. (Annemiek) JETTEN (Mayor of Sluis) was proposed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as a member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Ms A. (Annemiek) JETTEN, Mayor of the municipality of Vlaardingen (change of mandate). |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms A. (Annemiek) JETTEN, Mayor of the municipality of Vlaardingen (change of mandate).

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 3 April 2017.

For the Council

The President

R. GALDES

---

(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

2

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).

3

---
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.6



[Calpine Letterhead]


August 7, 2019


Charles Gates
                            
                               
Re: Bonus Payment


Dear Mr. Gates:
We refer to that certain Class B Interest Award Agreements, effective March 8, 2018 and August 29, 2018, between CPN Management, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“CPN”) and you, as amended, (together the “2018 Agreements”) and that certain Class B Interest Award Agreement, effective June 28, 2019 between CPN and you (the “2019 Agreement”).  This letter agreement (the “Agreement”) memorializes our agreement to pay you a cash bonus (the “Bonus”) on each Payment Date in the amount and circumstances set forth herein.
             The amount of the Bonus payable on each Payment Date shall be the excess, if any, of 
(A) the amount that would have been payable on the Payment Date under the 2018 Agreements had your 2018 Interest been an interest of 0.30% over 
(B) the amount actually payable under the 2018 Agreements and the 2019 Agreement, in the aggregate, on the Payment Date.
For purposes of this Agreement, the terms used herein shall have the meanings specified below:
(a) “2018 Interest” means the Total Class B Interest awarded to you under the 2018 Agreements, as amended;
(b) “Payment Date” is the date on which any payment is paid to you in respect of your 2018 Interest; 
If the foregoing correctly conforms to your understanding of the agreement between you and CPN, please sign and date the enclosed copy of this Agreement and return it to me on or before August 8, 2019.
	
		
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 
	 

	 
	/s/  HETHER BENJAMIN BROWN

	 
	Hether Benjamin Brown 
SVP, Chief Administrative Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	/s/  CHARLIE GATES

	 
	Charlie Gates
EVP - Power Operations
STATE v. ROGERS.

No. COA04-1168.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 5, 2005.

Certification Date July 25, 2005.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (02CRS208248, 02CRS208249, 02CRS208250, 02CRS208251).

Case without published opinion. No error.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of USA Superior  Energy  Holding,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2007 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report").  I, G. Rowland Carey,  President,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/ G. Rowland Carey
                                         --------------------------------
                                         G. Rowland Carey, President & Chief
                                            Executive Officer

Dated: May 21, 2007
STATE v. MILLS

No. COA05-852

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Halifax (01CRS56407, 02CRS1758).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.3

                                  Catcher, Inc.


                                                  As of May 4, 2005

John Sutton
1801 Warner Ranch Drive #1718
Round Rock TX 78664

Re:      Employment Agreement

Dear John:

Reference is made to your Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") with
Catcher, Inc. (the "Company") dated April 21, 2005. We wish to memorialize an
obligation the Company has undertaken with respect to your employment with the
Company. By your countersignature of this letter, your Employment Agreement with
the Company shall be deemed amended as set forth in this letter.

The Company is obliged to reimburse you for your reasonable and necessary
business expenses incurred in connection with your services under the Employment
Agreement.; PROVIDED THAT, such expenses are made, verified and submitted to the
Company for reimbursement in accordance with Company's expense reimbursement
policies. The Company will pay you a car allowance in the amount of $600 per
month.

If the foregoing reflects your understanding, please sign in the space provided
below and return this letter to the Company whereupon your Employment Agreement
shall be deemed amended hereby.

                                                  Sincerely,
                                                  CATCHER, INC.

                                                  /s/ Ira Tabankin
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  By: Ira Tabankin


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


/s/ John Sutton
-------------------------
John Sutton
KENTUCKY 

#16 #8 2.1% $2,804 #13 #17 #14

$12.6 B SPENT IN 5.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $9.5 B CONTRACT 56,441 NUMBER OF $3.0 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 1%

Supplies and Research and Equipment: 7% Development: 0%

Service: 93%

By Service 

Army

12%

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

1%

Other Defense

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 8% National 

4%

% Active Duty:

Guard: 1

Civilian: 18

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

3%

Other Defense

2%

85%

60%

94%

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

Humana $6.9 B

Lockheed Martin $837.5 M

Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass, JV $262.1 M

Raytheon $172.0 M

United Parcel Service Co. $79.1 M

Global Asset Technologies $64.2 M

Patriot Industries Inc. $59.0 M

SourceAmerica $41.7 M

Perspecta $33.6 M

Boneal Inc. $30.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$9.7 $9.5

$7.6 $6.3

FY13 FY14

$5.8 $5.6 $5.8

FY15

$4.9

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$3.0 BILLION 56,441

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Reserve Total

Christian 27,888 2,533 39 183 30,643

Hardin 5,563 4,420 77 2,461 12,521

Jefferson 136 1,232 1,890 666 3,924

Madison ND 1,060 602 32 ND

Franklin 20 308 1,145 0 1,473

Fayette 70 114 285 540 1,009

Boone 29 22 623 ND ND

Muhlenberg 0 81 364 0 445

Campbell ND 37 0 376 ND

McCracken ND 14 100 172 ND

52 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

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

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

KENTUCKY 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

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

Jefferson

Fayette

Hardin

Madison

Christian

Wayne

Menifee

Boone

Laurel

Boyle

(M = millions, B = billions)

$7.3 B 

$942.4 M 

$423.5 M 

$292.9 M 

$206.8 M 

$67.5 M 

$64.7 M 

$33.1 M 

$27.2 M 

$16.7 M 

Christian

Hardin

Jefferson

Madison

Franklin

Fayette

Boone

Muhlenberg

Daviess

Campbell

$1.8 B 

$780.1 M 

$176.4 M 

$83.0 M 

$66.2 M 

$29.9 M 

$16.3 M 

$11.5 M 

$7.4 M 

$6.6 M 

Jefferson Fayette

Menifee

Hardin Madison Boyle

Boone

Laurel

Christian Wayne

Jefferson

Boone

Fayette

Madison

Christian

Daviess

Muhlenberg

Hardin

Franklin

Campbell

53
Order entered November 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00446-CR

No. 05-15-00447-CR

No. 05-15-00448-CR

No. 05-15-00449-CR

No. 05-15-00450-CR

No. 05-15-00451-CR

ROGER LADALE FORD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-55016-U, F14-55017-U, F14-55018-U, 

F14-55019-U, F14-55020-U, F14-55021-U

ORDER

Before the Court is the State of Texas’s second motion to extend the time for filing its 

brief, which accompanied the State’s second motion. We GRANT the motion, deem the brief 

timely filed, and DIRECT the Clerk to file the State’s brief as of November 13, 2015.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
STATE v. PENNY

No. COA04-1401.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the New Hanover (01CRS28582).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
90 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

OKLAHOMA 

#25

$6.3 B SPENT IN 

#14

2.9% OF STATE GDP

1.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$1,582

PER RESIDENT 

#28

$3.0 B CONTRACT 

#13

60,790 NUMBER OF 

#13

$3.3 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and Construction: 2%

Development: 3%

Supplies and

Equipment: 28%

Service: 68%

By Service 

Army

12%

Navy/Marines

10%

Air Force

68%

Other Defense

10%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 7%

National 

Guard: 14%

Active Duty: 35%

Civilian: 43%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

43%

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

49%

Other Defense

3%

Top Defense Contractors 

Boeing

L3Harris Technologies

Cherokee Nation

Cymstar

Strategic Mission Systems

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton

Afognak Native Corp.

Leidos

Professional Contract Services

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.1 B

$157.8 M

$74.3 M

$72.3 M

$66.2 M

$55.4 M

$48.8 M

$42.3 M

$41.7 M

$41.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$3.4 $3.4 $3.3 $3.1 $3.0

FY18 FY19 FY20

$3.0

$2.2 $1.8

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY21

$3.3 BILLION 60,790

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Oklahoma

Comanche

Tulsa

Jackson

Pittsburg

Garfield

Cleveland

Canadian

Wagoner

Muskogee

Duty

6,509

12,203

49 

1,307

ND 

1,243

36

ND 

14 

0 

Guard

18,699 2,262

2,602 420 

914 1,786

1,288 85 

1,827 78 

325 170 

161 966

25 650

17 450 

80 436

Reserve

2,231

416

342 

73 

12 

122 

59 

372 

424 

37 

Total

29,701

15,641

3,091

2,753

ND 

1,860

1,222

ND 

905 

553 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

OKLAHOMA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Tulsa

Wagoner

Pittsburg

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Garfield

Payne

Muskogee

Oklahoma

Cleveland

Comanche

Jackson

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

Oklahoma

Tulsa

Comanche

Garfield

Pittsburg

Jackson

Rogers

Payne

Muskogee

Cleveland

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.1 B

$239.2 M

$233.3 M

$123.0 M

$48.3 M

$44.0 M

$40.3 M

$33.5 M

$26.2 M

$23.1 M

Oklahoma

Comanche

Jackson

Tulsa

Pittsburg

Garfield

Cleveland

Wagoner

Canadian

Muskogee

$2.0 B

$722.2 M

$168.2 M

$120.0 M

$118.7 M

$116.9 M

$36.4 M

$19.8 M

$19.1 M

$12.5 M

Rogers Tulsa

Pittsburg

Garfield

Oklahoma

Cleveland

Comanche

Jackson

Canadian Muskogee

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 91

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
## NO. 12

- 19

- 00111

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LG CHEM AMERICA, INC

., APPELLANT

V.

ETHAN LUSK,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241S T

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

On March 27, 2019 , the C lerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this

appeal is due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee

on or before April 8, 2019 , would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, includi ng

dismissal of the case without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting

the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, t he appeal is dismissed

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered April 17, 2019.

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

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 1 7 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00111

- CV

LG CHEM AMERICA, INC

., Appellant

V.
ETHAN LUSK,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 18

- 2524

- C)

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.

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

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismiss ed ; 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.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Love RENFRO, Jr.

No. 674A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2006.

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. ___, 621 S.E.2d 221 (2005), finding no error in a judgment entered 7 June 2004 by Judge Jack A. Thompson in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 March 2006.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by James M. Stanley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

George E. Kelly, III, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Justice BRADY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,* 356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002); *Robinson v. Byrd,* 356 N.C. 608, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2234

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Gary Sembler, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 2006 Filed: May 11, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Sembler appeals the se ntence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to de fraud the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 286, and presenting false claims against the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 287. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting Sembler’s belief that he should have been sentenced as a minor participant.-2- We conclude thatit was not clear error for the district court to deny a minorrole reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 upon findi ng that the conspiracy could not have taken place without Sembler’s involvement. See United States v. Casares-Cardenas , 14 F.3d 1283, 1289 (8th Cir.) (decision whether to accord minor-role status is factual finding reviewed for clear error; denial of minor-role reduction was not clear error where defendant’s role was “integral to the advancement of the purpose of the conspiracy”), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 849 (1994).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
STATE of North Carolina v. William Earl BRADLEY.

No. 21P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 2006.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bradley.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of January 2006 by Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina *190Court 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 2nd day of March 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 13th day of January 2006 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 2nd day of March 2006."