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

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

54%

21%

9%

17%

$4.9 $5.4 $5.0

$5.7 $5.6 $5.7

$4.6 $5.0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

68%

5%

27%

0%

Construcon: 8%

Research and

 Development: 25%

Service: 55%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 12%

Acve Duty: 58%

Civilian: 19%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 22%

United Launch Alliance

Northrop Grumman

Raytheon

Lockheed Marn

Kiewit‐Turner, JV

Harris

Bechtel Group

Polaris Alpha

Ball Corp.

Berkshire Hathaway

$941.5 M

$554.2 M

$400.3 M

$319.4 M

$254.9 M

$203.6 M

$106.7 M

$80.2 M

$58.0 M

$51.0 M

El Paso

Arapahoe

Denver

Adams

Weld

Jefferson

Pueblo

Boulder

Larimer

Mesa

County

46,013

7,849

1,551

1,215

905

836

540

205

172

155

Total*

32,014

2,472

271

ND

ND

44

15

69

24

15

Acve Duty

   Military

8,692

1,495

260

71

109

275

426

57

ND

24

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

COLORADO

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Con ense Con ense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$3.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

$3.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

60,161

TOTAL PERSONNEL

60,161

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Loc sonnel Loc sonnel Locaons

*Total also includes unif al also includes uniformed Na ormed Naonal Guar onal Guard and R d and Reserve units. e units.

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

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

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

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

26 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Actve AF Guard Army Actve

COLORADOCOLORADOCOLORADO COLORADO

#16 #16 2.1% $1,498 #17 #13 #10

$8.4 B

SPENT IN STATE

2.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $5.0 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

60,161 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$3.4 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

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

El Paso County

$2.1 B

Arapahoe County

$1.4 B

Adams County

$295.0 M

Boulder County

$168.4 M

Jeferson County

$152.0 M

Pueblo County

$135.1 M

Douglas County

$124.8 M

Denver County

$121.0 M

Broomfeld County

$44.2 M

Larimer County

$44.2 M

El Paso

Arapahoe

Adams

Boulder

Jeferson

Pueblo

Douglas

Broomfeld Denver

Larimer

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=billions) B=billions)(M=millions

El Paso County

$2.8 B

Arapahoe County

$399.9 M

Denver County

$61.4 M

Jeferson County

$36.4 M

Pueblo County

$33.2 M

Adams County

$30.0 M

Weld County

$20.2 M

Boulder County

$15.2 M

Larimer County

$6.2 M

Douglas County

$4.8 M

El Paso

Arapahoe

Denver

Jeferson

Pueblo

Adams

Weld

Boulder

Larimer

Douglas

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 27
IN RE W.G.R.

No. COA05-1664.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (05J200).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ian Aulden CAMPBELL.

No. 316P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Ian Aulden Campbell.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th 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 17th day of August 2006."
#### Aharon Weber et al., Appellants, v Rainbow Software, Inc., Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 428]

In a purported class action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 18, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in *Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour and Travel*(22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), no class action may be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Randy Lynn ATKINS.

No. 9A94-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Paul Green, Durham, Jonathan L. Megerian, Asheboro, for Randy Lynn Atkins.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of May 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. Christopher Edward GOSS.

No. 316A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2006.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of January 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcripts:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 9th day of February 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of January 2006."
# EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Chilco River Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Winston Yen, Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Date:  August 16, 2006 | By:   /s/ Winston Yen
       __________________________________________
           Winston Yen
           Chief Financial Officer       
           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# Council Decision of 28 January 2013 appointing a Belgian member and a Belgian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions            (2013/68/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 28 January 2013

# appointing a Belgian member and a Belgian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

# (2013/68/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 Belgian 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 has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Jos CHABERT.

(3)An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Jean-Luc VANRAES as member of the Committee                              of the Regions,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which                     runs until 25 January 2015:                  

as member:
                -  Mr Jean-Luc VANRAES, *Brussels Volksvertegenwoordiger in het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Parlement*                                   

and

as alternate member:
                -  Ms Brigitte GROUWELS, *Minister van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest*.                                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Coveney                            

1

OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.                           

2

OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Canzoneri, Petitioner, v Alan G. Hevesi, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 625]

Lahtinen, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for military service credit in the calculation of his retirement benefits.

Petitioner applied to the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System for military service credit for time spent as a cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy during the Korean War *(see*Retirement and Social Security Law § 1000 [1]).* The Retirement System initially denied petitioner’s application concluding that he was not on “actual active duty.” Petitioner requested a hearing, after which the Hearing Officer determined that petitioner’s time at the Coast Guard Academy constituted military duty as defined by Military Law § 243 (1) (b), thereby entitling him to military service credit from July 7, 1952—the date he entered the Coast Guard Academy—until January 31, 1955—the end of the Korean War. Respondent rejected the Hearing Officer’s determination, finding that petitioner’s period of active military service commenced with his commission as an ensign on June 1, 1956. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Notwithstanding petitioner’s evidence indicating that his time spent at the Coast Guard Academy has been deemed to be active service, there is substantial evidence in the record to support respondent’s determination that petitioner’s military duty for purposes of service credit under the statute commenced on June 1, 1956 *(cf. Crawford v Department of Transp.,*373 F3d 1155 [2004]). We find nothing “irrational, unreasonable *or*inconsistent” *(Matter of Whitehill v New York State Teachers’ Retirement Sys.,*142 AD2d 902, 904 [1988], *affd*73 NY2d 944 [1989]) about respondent’s determination that petitioner’s time *640as a cadet does not qualify for service credit under the statute and we therefore refuse to disturb it *(see Matter of McMorrow v Hevesi,*6 AD3d 925, 926-927 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Retirement and Social Security Law § 1000 (1) provides service credit for up to three years of military duty for honorably discharged Korean War veterans who rendered military service from June 27, 1950 until January 31, 1955.
STATE v. WEBSTER.

No. COA05-1020.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS76149)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRYANT ELLIOTT DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:03-cr-00412-WDQ) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant Elliott Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bryant Elliot Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s June 26, 2006 order dismissing without prejudice his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion filed on May 30, 2006. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 7, 2014

NO. 03-14-00187-CV

Halff Associates, Inc., Appellant

v.

Michael Mathews, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on March 13, 2014. 

Halff Associates, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the 

motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the 

motion and dismisses the appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, 

both in this Court and the court below, and this decision shall be certified below for observance.
STATE v. Christopher Edward GOSS.

No. 316A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2006.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of August 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve and File Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 31st day of August 2006 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2006."
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

s0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140606

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140606 COA: 293988 Wayne CC: 04-009115 JOSHUA JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Hardesty
) J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(Oj 1947A 

# at e at 3 / 4 j 

## e , - was untimely filed. 

### See NRS 34.726(1). Moreover, appellant's motion constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. 2 

### See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's motion was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. 

### See NRS 34.726(1); NRS 34.810(3). Appellant did not attempt to provide cause for the delay. Moreover, appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice because "house arrest does not constitute time 'actually spent in confinement' for which the duration of a sentence may be credited." 

### State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Jackson), 121 Nev. 413, 418-19, 116 P.3d 834, 837 (2005). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3



## 4 -t 6 1 „. 1

Douglas J. Cherry

2 

### Suggs v. State, Docket No. 49775 (Order of Affirmance, June 9, 2008).

3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

### cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Joe Suggs Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
0) 1947A ca
HERRIMAN v. GASTON COUNTY EX REL. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

No. COA05-1610.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 15, 2006.

Certification Date September 5, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (99CVD4254).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
erb20160705_8k.htm


Exhibit 10.2

 

 

CHANGE IN TERMS AGREEMENT

 

	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Borrower:
	
Erba Diagnostics, Inc.
	
Lender:
	
Citibank, N.A.

	  	
2140 North Miami Avenue
	  	
6801 Colwell Boulevard

	  	
Miami, FL 33127
	  	
Irving, TX 75039

	  	  	  	  


 

	
Principal Amount: $5,000,000
	
Date of Agreement: June 28, 2016



 

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS. Promissory Note dated September 17, 2015 in the original amount of $5,000,000 by and between Erba Diagnostics, Inc. (“Borrower”) and Citibank, N.A. (“Lender”), the “Note” as amended from time to time. 

 

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE IN TERMS. Lender and the Borrower hereby agree that the said Note shall be and hereby is amended to extend the maturity date from June 30, 2016 to December 31, 2016, subject to the terms and conditions of the Note and the instruments and agreements referred to therein.

 

CONTINUING VALIDITY. Except as expressly changed by this Agreement, the terms of the original obligation or obligations, including all agreements evidenced or securing the obligation(s), remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Consent by Lender to this Agreement does not waive Lender’s right to strict performance of the obligation(s) as changed, nor obligate Lender to make any future change in terms. Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a satisfaction of the obligation(s). It is the intention of Lender to retain as liable parties all makers and endorsers of the original obligation(s), including accommodation parties, unless a party is expressly released by Lender in writing. Any maker or endorser, including accommodation makers, will not be released by virtue of this Agreement. If any person who signed the original obligation does not sign this Agreement below, then all persons signing below acknowledge that this Agreement is given conditionally, based on the representation to Lender that the non-signing party consents to the changes and provisions of this Agreement or otherwise will not be released by it. This waiver applies not only to any initial extension, modification of release, but also to all such subsequent actions.

 

PRIOR TO SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, BORROWER READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT. BORROWER AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.

 

BORROWER:

 

 

 

ERBA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

 

 

 

	 	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	By:	
/s/ Mohan Gopalkrishnan 
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Ernesina Scala
	
 

	 	
Mohan Gopalkrishnan, Chief Executive Officer
	
 
	
 
	
Ernesina Scala, Chief Financial Officer 
	
 

	 	
and Secretary of Erba Diagnostics, Inc.
	
 
	
 
	of Erba Diagnostics, Inc.
Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane l unani m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). j l f/ Inv en t o ry NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON

UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T NO RM A LI ZE TH HERNA ND EZ C AS T I L L O, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E RJ r., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71268 A ge nc y N o. A 098- 432- 540 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ard o f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efore: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , A N D T A S H IM A , C i rcuitJu d g es. N o rm a L i zeth H ernan d ez-C ast i l l o , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f E l S al v ad o r, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ de c i s i on



# FI L ED NOV 30 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALSj l f

/ I nvent ory 08- 71268 2 a f f i rmi n g th e i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ' s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h e rap p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f r em o v al , an dp rotect i o n u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n stT o rtu re ( "C A T ") . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew f or s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e , Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 5 4 2 F . 3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dwe d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he r ec ord do es no tcom pel r ever sa l of the I J' s c on clusi on thatpet i t i on er f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha ts he s uf f e r e d a tthe hands of

gang m e m be r s i n El Sal va doron a c c o u n t o f

ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . See Ra m os-L op ezv. H older , 563 F. 3d 855, 858- 62 ( 9th C i r . 20 09 ) ( concl ud i ng thatr es i st ance t o g ang act i vi ty i s nota part i cul arsoci al g ro up fo r th e p u rp o s e o f e s tab lis h in g n e x u s to ap ro te c te dg ro u n d ); Mol i naMo ra les v . I

NS , 237 F. 3d 1048, 1051- 52 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( pe r s ona l r e tr i but i on i s not p e r s e c u t i o n o n a c c o u n to f ap r o t e c t e dg r o u n d ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , p e t i t i o n e r ' s a s y l u m, w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, an dC A T c la im s fa il. P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.
STATE v. CARTER

No. COA05-1235

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Bladen (02CRS53144, 02CRS53154).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.