alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
VAN REYPEN ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a the Gin Mill v. Gerald Eugene TEETER, and Gorden Lewis d/b/a Gorden's Excavating Service.

No. 84PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Charles M. Viser, Charlotte, for Van Reypen Associates, Inc.

D. Lane Matthews, Charlotte, for Gerald Teeter, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of February 2006 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE v. Stevie Doulgas IVEY.

No. 182P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of April 2006 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
STATE v. POWELL.

No. COA04-1340.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Joe D. BARFIELD.

No. 225P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of April 2006 by Defendant for Review of Motion for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
IN RE A.W.M.

No. COA05-886

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Cleveland (102J109).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick D. BOGER.

No. 158P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Derrick D. Boger, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of March 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cabarrus County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

June 24, 2014

s0616 

# Order

Clerk June 24, 2014

148768

BOB WOODWARD,

Plaintiff/Counter

- Defendant

Appellee,

v SC: 148768

COA: 318029

Wayne CC: 13

- 006402

- AV

CHRISTOPHER SCHWARTZ,

Defendant/Counter

- Plaintiff

Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
STATE v. LaMorris A. WHITE.

No. 677P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of November 2005 by Defendant in Arrest of Judgment:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2165

MONICA JEFFRIES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:15-cv-00473-GJH)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, 

Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Monica Jeffries seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss her claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2018). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 11, 2016. The notice of 

appeal was filed on October 21, 2019. Because Jeffries failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
PERKINSON v. HAWLEY.

No. COA05-1685.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Vance (05CVS550).

Case reported without published opinion. Motion to dismiss allowed; Appeal dismissed.
STATE v. CHAPMAN

No. COA05-254

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Macon (03CRS52282, 03CRS52284, 03CRS52287, 04CRS652).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; remanded in part.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Williams JONES.

No. 309P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Anthony W. Jones, Pro Se.

Douglas W. Corkhill, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of June 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2005 (the "Report") of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the "Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



/s/ Richard L. PetekaName:

Richard L. PetekaDate:

February 7, 2006
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17524; Alaska Disaster Number AK-00052 Declaration of Economic Injury]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of ALASKA dated 07/12/2022. *Incident:*
                         Lowell Point Landslide and Lowell Point Road Closure. *Incident Period:*
                         05/07/2022 through 06/10/2022.
 DATES: Issued on 07/12/2022. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/12/2023.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Kenai Peninsula Borough. *Contiguous Counties:* Alaska: Chugach REAA, Iditarod Area REAA, Kodiak Island Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Municipality of Anchorage. The Interest Rates are: PercentBusinesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.935Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 175240. The State which received an EIDL Declaration #17524 is Alaska. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-15264 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
STATE of North Carolina v. John Willie AUTRY.

No. 193P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Linda B. Weisel, Raleigh, for John W. Autry.

Stormie D. Forte, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 11th day of April 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of April 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*217"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
ROBINS v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

No. 154A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2006.

Seth R. Cohen, J. David James, Greensboro, for Robins.

J. Michael Carpenter, for NCHBA.

Richard A. Zechini, for NCAR.

Craig D. Justus, Asheville, for NCOAA.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of July 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Town of Hillsborough) shall have up to and including the 7th day of August 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of July 2006."
WILLIAMS v. INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 712PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2006.

George L. Simpson, III, for Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Matthew S. Sullivan, Thomas J. White, III, Kinston, Gregory E. Floyd, K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, for Debbie & Ashley Williams.

Roger A. Askew, Jodee S. Larcade, Raleigh, for NC Asso. of Defense Attorneys.

Holly M. Bryan, for NCATL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of July 2006 by NCATL for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of July 2006."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5753 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5753

To prohibit the sale of kitchen ranges or ovens which do not include a 
  design, bracket, or other device which complies with an applicable 
consensus product safety standard intended to prevent the product from 
                                tipping.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2008

  Mr. Stupak (for himself and Mr. Fossella) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the sale of kitchen ranges or ovens which do not include a 
  design, bracket, or other device which complies with an applicable 
consensus product safety standard intended to prevent the product from 
                                tipping.

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

SECTION 1. BRACKETS OR DEVICES TO PREVENT OVEN RANGES FROM TIPPING.

    (a) Inclusion of Brackets or Devices.--Effective 180 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, it shall prohibited under section 19(a) 
of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068(a)) for any person 
to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce or 
import into the United States a residential kitchen range or oven which 
does not include a design, bracket, or other device which complies with 
an applicable consensus product safety standard intended to prevent the 
product from tipping. In determining compliance with this requirement, 
the Commission shall rely on the applicable consensus product safety 
standard.
    (b) Retailer Installation Requirement.--Effective 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, it shall prohibited under section 
19(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068(a)) for any 
retailer of a residential kitchen range or oven that offers 
installation services for any range or oven sold by that retailer, to 
fail to install any bracket or other device which complies with an 
applicable consensus product safety standard intended to prevent the 
product from tipping and which is included with the range or oven.
    (c) Public Awareness Campaign.--The Consumer Product Safety 
Commission shall conduct an informational campaign to help educate 
consumers about the danger of range or oven tipping and the importance 
of installing such products in accordance with applicable consensus 
product safety standard intended to prevent the product from tipping.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Bernard Liautaud, 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 of Business Objects S.A. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004
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 fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Business Objects S.A. By:
    
    /s/ Bernard LiautaudBernard LiautaudChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11308

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:09-cr-00011-LGW-CLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

MICHAEL HENDRIX, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(October 18, 2019)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, GRANT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-11308 Date Filed: 10/18/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Matthew Hube, appointed counsel for Michael Hendrix in this appeal from a 

revocation of supervised release, has moved to withdraw from further 

representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the revocation of Hendrix’s 

supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-11308 Date Filed: 10/18/2019 Page: 2 of 2
STATE v. Shamonte Arnell GREEN.

No. 345P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 11, 2006.

Barbara S. Blackman, Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Green.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, Beirne M. Harding, Assistant District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of July 2006 by Attorney General Extension of Time to File State's Response to Defendant's Petition for Writ of Supersedeas:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 31st day of July 2006 to file and serve his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of July 2006."
# Council Decision of 17 December 2013 appointing a German member of the Committee of the Regions (2013/773/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 17 December 2013

# appointing a German member of the Committee of the Regions

# (2013/773/EU)

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 German Government,

Whereas:

(1)On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU(1) and 2010/29/EU(2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January                              2015.

(2)A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions will become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Emilia MÜLLER,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The following is hereby appointed as member of the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office,                     which runs until 25 January 2015:                  
          -  Dr Beate MERK, *Bayerische Staatsministerin für Europaangelegenheiten und regionale Beziehungen*.                         

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

L. Linkevičius                            

1

OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.                           

2

OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
** EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John R. Miller, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Beef Packing Company,LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting. 

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

Date: April 6, 2006