alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THEAYTORNEY GENERAL 

OF'TEXAS 

Honorable Geo. H. Sheppard 

ColPptmVsr of Publlc'Aooounte 

Au&in, Texae 

Dear Sir: opinion 190. O-4101 

Re: Are penhemntwaving eolutlons 

to be olaesifled ae halr preparatlom uuder S. B. 470, 47U1 

Legislature, Regular Semion? 

Ue aolmowledge receipt of your requeet for (~1 opinion of tble 

Depslment on whether or not permanent waving eolutlone exe to be olaee%fled 

as hair preparations under Senate Bill 470, 47th Leglslatare, ReguLar 

Seaslon. 

Youadvise us thatpermanentwavlngeolutlone are liquid oh-loals&loh are applied to thehairand thatwhen eoapplled andheated, 

thehair'wlllretain the ehape lnwhloh ltwae woundwhem the application 

ofheat lemede. 

Senate Bill 470, enpra, is an emendment to Boaae BIIJ. 8, 47th 

I&jtilaiiirh, Regular Session, d&flnliig,'mimg other.thln@, the 'term' 

*oiS3keflc~ .I( Hors6 Blll 8, supra, is a tax statute. Senate Bill 470 

deities the +rm ?oofmetloy" ae meaniagr ~_ _.. 

"~*The.teim 'oomnetloti~ was used in thle A&$oU meann -' 

rouge (liquid, eml-eolld or solid), llpetlok (liquid, eeaW 

aolld or eolld), feoe powder, face creeme (irrcludln& cleaneing, 

foundati~,vaniahirrg,lassssgearanyo~~eimiLaroFecnato 

be used on the skia), lotlone (hand, face, aud skip inoluding 

aetrlngente),nallpoliih (allklnde) andinmi&ingpre~tlW, 

eyelmhpreparatlone, eyebrowpenclle, eye ehedowing-prepeSati=, 

hair oil, hair tonle end other hair pti?XU'atlone: . . . (RI&aeig 

0-1 

*Preparation* is defined by Heb@er .SE being: 

"Sonethhing made, equipped or oompemded for a partloular 

purpose.* 

Fmm your request it appears that "permene~twavlng selntloUe" 

are subatenoes whlah are made or oaupomxded for tie particalar plvpos0 Of 

use on thehair. 
Honorable Geo.H. Sheppard, Paea 2 (OAlal) 

We are, tierefore, of the op9nlon tit the tem%alrpreparations* includes penuanentwaving solntlcnm. 

'Rusting t$attie foregoing fully e.nfswex-8 your inqalry,we 

are 

Yours very truly 

AllwfmY-oF~ 

APPROVRD CCT 18, 19h 

/a/ &over Sellerf 

By /a/Rl&ardH. Cooke 

Bfchard H. cwke 

Aaalstant 

APPRomoPmIoIo 

COMLTTEE BY /a/ B.W.B.
STATE v. Frank MOORE.

No. 417P00-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of October 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C.G.S. A-31(B)(1)(2)(3)(4)(C)(1)(2)(3)(D)":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 7TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 20th

day of May, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

SHAWN ANDERSON, Appellant

NO. 12-15-00127-CR; Trial Court No. 007-1622-14

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“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 dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 15th day of July, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed June 20 , 201 3 ,

Withdrawn, App eal Reinstated and Order filed August 8, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00252

- CV

____________ CHRISTOPHER MULGREW , Appellant

V.
SPECTRASEIS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 41761



### ORDER

On June 20 , 201 3 , this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On, July 5, 2013, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. Appellee filed a response July 19, 2013. The motion is GRANTED

. This court’s opinion filed June 20, 2013 , is WITHDRAWN , and our judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED.

### PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justi ces Brown, Christopher, and McCally.
STATE v. Sabin Thain SEGERS.

No. 585P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of October 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of November 2005."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         498,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,328,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,902,000
<PP&E>                                      13,714,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,679,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,131,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,171,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,604,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,131,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               810,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,151,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             992,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,341,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,341,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,341,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.13      CONSENT OF ISABELLE ROY   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Isabelle Roy, participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled Rapport technique et recommandations, Campagne dexploration 2011, Projet Nichicun, Mines Virginia inc., completed in May 2012; (the Report), concerning mineralized material in the Nichicun property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.3.4 Geological Setting; 3.3.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.3.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,    /s/  Isabelle RoyName:  Isabelle Roy, B.Sc., P.Geo.      May 14, 2012
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation, Tax Identification No. 56-0205520 v. Wendell Corey MALCOLM and Callabridge/Granite, LLC.

No. 379A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 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. ___, 630 S.E.2d 693 (2006), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment entered 14 December 2004 by Judge James E. Lanning in *539Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 22 November 2006.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, by Irvin W. Hankins III and John W. Francisco, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Ferguson, Scarbrough & Hayes, P.A., by James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for defendant-appellant Malcolm.

Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, by James H. Kelly, Jr. and Noelle E. Wooten, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant Callabridge/Granite, LLC.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-13-240

PENNY STROTHER

APPELLANT

V.

LACROIX OPTICAL, 

MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE

COMPANY, AND DEATH &

PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY

TRUST FUND

 APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered October 2, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

COMMISSION, [No. F406963]

SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE

ADDENDUM ORDERED

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant appeals from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s

(Commission) reversal of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that appellant was

permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the Commission’s

reversal was unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) the Arkansas Workers’

Compensation Act is unconstitutional in violation of her right to substantive and procedural

due process. Because appellant has submitted a brief without a proper addendum in violation

of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i),1

 we order appellant to submit a supplemental addendum.

1

(2012).

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 558
Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires the addendum to include all items that are essential for

the appellate court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, including

exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. In its opinion and order reversing the ALJ’s findings as to

whether appellant was permanently and totally disabled, the Commission relies, in part, on

surveillance video of appellant that “showed no apparent difficulties involving claimant’s

upper extremities or any other part of her body.” This video, though in the record, is not in

the addendum.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a supplemental addendum to provide the video

exhibit to the members of the court within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion.2

We strongly encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the supplemental addendum, to

review our rules, as well as the record and addenda, to ensure that no additional deficiencies

are present.

Supplementation of the addendum ordered.

HARRISON and WYNNE, JJ., agree.

Frederick S. “Rick” Spencer, for appellant.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Travis J. Fowler, for appellee.

2Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).

2

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 558
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DANIEL KING

v.

HON. CHARLES B. BURR II, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY OF JUDGE OF

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

DELAWARE COUNTY

PETITION OF: DANIEL KING AND

THOMAS GANNON :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 188 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of February , 2017

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Prohibition and the

Application for Leave to File Preliminary Objections are DENIED

.

The Application for Relief Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 123, filed by Riverwatch

Condominium Owners Association, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

. See King

v. Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge , 2 MM 2017 (order dated February

28, 2017) (issuing a rule on Petitioners “to show cause why they should not be barred

from submitting any further filings in this Court relative to the civil action involving

Riverwatch Condominium Owners Assoc iation, incl uding any related orders concerning

the awards of costs, as well as directives barring Thomas P. Gannon, Esquire, from

representing Daniel King.”).

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name o f the jurist from the caption.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          44,213
<SECURITIES>                                    76,166
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,142
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,440
<PP&E>                                          42,715
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       370,111
<OTHER-SE>                                     (87,704)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,928
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,437
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,459
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (55,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (55,717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (55,717)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
Georgia D. RUSSELL v. Larry RUSSELL.

No. 325P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 23, 2006.

Cedric R. Perry, Rocky Mount, for Georgia D. Russell.

*544Wesley Abney, for Larry Russell.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of June 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of October 2006."
|    |                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | To my knowledge, 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/ HOWARD WIDRA        |
| Howard Widra            |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 4, 2020   |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/ GREGORY W. HUNT                   |
| Gregory W. Hunt                       |
| Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| February 4, 2020                 |
LINKENHOGER v. RENAISSANCE CONST. CO., INC.

No. COA05-1117.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Dare (04CVS45).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RANDY D. GLENN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (7:02-cr-01135-MBS-1; 7:05-cv-03278-MBS) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy D. Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Randy D. Glenn seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Glenn 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACT 5 FDS
FOR 3RD QUARTER 10Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           6,086
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                        81
<INVENTORY>                                      3,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,047
<PP&E>                                          28,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,205
<BONDS>                                         75,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,318)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,424
<SALES>                                         37,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,621
<CGS>                                            5,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,192)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.79)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated 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 disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    /s/ John J. DeeJohn J. DeeChief Financial Officer and
Senior Vice President
(Principal Financial Officer)