alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Polly Groome STRICKLAND, Carroll P. Groome, Mary Elizabeth Groome McHenry, and John R. Groome, Jr. v. Bill LAWRENCE, Lawrence Sand and Gravel, Inc., d/b/a Viewmont Sandrock, Inc., Viewmont Sandrock, David H. Griffin, Sr., Jimmy Clark, Bishop Road Properties, LLC and Viewmont Road Properties, LLC.

No. 224P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2006.

Teresa DeLoatch Bryant, Greensboro, for Strickland, et al.

Andrew S. Lasine, High Point, for Griffin, Clark and Viewmont Rd.

James W. Miles, Jr., William A. Eagles, Greensboro, for Lawrence, Lawrence Sand, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of April 2006 by Plaintiffs 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 24th day of June 2006."
Good Hope v. NCDHHS.

No. 58A06

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 17, 2006

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of August 2006 by Petitioners and Petitioner Intervenors to Take Judicial Notice:

> Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006.
#### In the Matter of Ainsworth Hunter, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 799]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 2, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole, denying his request for parole release.

Petitioner is serving a sentence of 12V2 to 25 years as a second violent felony offender following his conviction of attempted murder in the second degree. In October 2003, petitioner made his initial appearance before the Board of Parole and his request for release was denied. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

A review of the record fails to support petitioner’s contention that the Board’s determination was based solely on the instant offense to the exchision of all other statutory factors. Rather, the parole hearing transcript and Board’s determination demonstrate that the Board considered petitioner’s positive institutional programming and accomplishments, disciplinary infractions, potential deportation and plans upon release. Although the Board emphasized the serious nature of the instant offense, which involved terrorizing multiple victims and was committed while petitioner was on probation supervision, it was not required to assign equal weight to or discuss every factor it considered in making its determination (see *Matter of Motti v Travis,*19 AD3d 763 [2005]; *Matter of Wan Zhang v Travis,*10 AD3d 828, 829 [2004]). Inasmuch as the Board considered the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law 259-i [2] [c] [A]), and there being no showing that the determination was affected *1179by irrationality bordering on impropriety, the determination will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Martin v Travis,*17 AD3d 884 [2005], *appeal dismissed*5 NY3d 782 [2005]; *Matter of Gonzalez v Travis,*275 AD2d 827 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 769 [2000]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that it was irrational not to grant him parole conditioned on his deportation, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                           6,007
<SECURITIES>                                     1,791
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,996
<INVENTORY>                                     80,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,270
<PP&E>                                          56,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,464
<BONDS>                                         76,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,454
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,520
<SALES>                                         62,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,544
<CGS>                                           32,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,123
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (318)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.8      CONSENT OF VITAL PEARSON   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2014 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Vital Pearson, participated in the preparation of the technical entitled Technical Report and Recommendations, 2013 Exploration Program, Coulon Project, Quebec Mines Virginia Inc., December 2013 concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.1.4 Geological Setting; 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.1.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2014 (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/
Vital Pearson                |  | 
| | Name:
Vital Pearson, M.Sc., Eng. |  | 

May 15, 2014
TILLMAN v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT.

No. 360A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 4, 2006.

John Alan Jones, G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Tillman and Richardson.

Christopher J. Willis, Richard H. Sinkfield, Atlanta, GA, for Commercial Credit, et al.

Carlene McNulty, Mallam J. Maynard, F. Paul Bland, Jr., Washington, DC, for NC Justice Center, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Commercial Credit, et al.) shall have up to and including the 16th day of November 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of October 2006."
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 22, 2012

Mr. Jeffery T. Nobles

Beirne Maynard & Parsons LLP

1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2500

Houston, TX 77056

Mr. Marc G. Rosenthal

Rosenthal & Watson, PC.

6601 Vaught Ranch Road, Suite 200

Austin, TX 78730

RE:Case Number:  09-0745

Court of Appeals Number:  13-08-00628-CV

Trial Court Number:  2008-03-1636-E

Style:FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD AND VALLEY MORNING STAR

v.

JUAN ANTONIO CORONADO, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 09-0745Page 1**
KENNEDY, et al. v. SPEEDWAY.

No. 469P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

G. Gray Wilson, Kevin B. Cartledge, Winston-Salem, Katherine C. Wagner, for Kennedy, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of September 2006 by Defendants to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
V 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 575 

For the relief of Enrique Soriano, Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli Soriano. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Enrique Soriano, Cleotilde Soriano, and 

Areli Soriano. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ENRIQUE 

4 SORIANO, CLEOTILDE SORIANO, AND ARELI 

5 SORIANO. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

7 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act, Enrique Soriano, Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli Soriano 

9 shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa 

10 or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 

11 admitted for permanent residence upon filing an applicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 18:07 Jan 20, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H575.IH H575

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 575 IH

1 tion for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 

2 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful perma3 nent resident. 

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Enrique Soriano, 

5 Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli Soriano enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

7 he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

8 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad9 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap14 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica15 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

16 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Enrique Soriano, Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli 

20 Soriano, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 

21 officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 

22 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 575 IH

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act. 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Enrique Soriano, 

6 Cleotilde Soriano, and Areli Soriano shall not, by virtue 

7 of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or 

8 status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN RE J.G.B.

No. COA05-590.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Burke (04J35, 04J36, 04J37, 04J38)

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1

MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         |  | TYPE OF ENTITY                     |  | RELATION               
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|MarkWest Michigan, Inc.                    |  | Colorado Corporation               |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|West Shore Processing Company, LLC         |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|Basin Pipeline LLC                         |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Resources, Inc.                   |  | Colorado Corporation               |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|Matrex, LLC                                |  | Michigan Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Resources Canada Corporation      |  | Alberta Canada Corporation         |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Canadian Midstream Services, Inc. |  | Alberta Canada Corporation         |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.             |  | Delaware Limited Partnership       |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Operating Company, L.L.C.  |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary
|MarkWest Energy Appalachia, L.L.C.         |  | Delaware Limited Liability Company |  | Wholly owned subsidiary



QuickLinks
STATE v. CAMERON.

No. COA06-159.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS11155)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5796 

To provide funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation for 

mortgage foreclosure mitigation activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2008 

Ms. CLARKE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To provide funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment 

Corporation for mortgage foreclosure mitigation activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foreclosure Prevention 

5 Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOUSING COUNSELING RESOURCES. 

7 There are appropriated out of any money in the 

8 Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year 

9 2008, for an additional amount for the ‘‘Neighborhood Re10 investment Corporation—Payment to the Neighborhood 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5796 IH

1 Reinvestment Corporation’’ $100,000,000, to remain 

2 available until September 30, 2008, for foreclosure mitiga3 tion activities under the terms and conditions contained 

4 in the second undesignated paragraph (beginning with the 

5 phrase ‘‘For an additional amount’’) under the heading 

6 ‘‘Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation—Payment to 

7 the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation’’ of Public 

8 Law 110–161. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1047/2013Show full title

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1047/2013 of 21 August 2013 amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013            for the purpose of correcting the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Piaggio (Text with EEA            relevance)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1047/2013                     

# of 21 August 2013

# amending Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 for the purpose of correcting the 2010 average specific CO2 emissions specified for the manufacturer Piaggio                     

# (Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 setting emission                           performance standards for new light commercial vehicles as part of the Union’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles(1), and in particular Article 11(7) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)The manufacturer of light commercial vehicles, Piaggio, has informed the Commission that the average specific CO2 emissions in 2010 specified for that manufacturer in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 of 6 November 2012                              supplementing Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to rules for the application                              for a derogation from the specific CO2 emissions targets for new light commercial vehicles(2) are incorrect. The manufacturer has provided detailed evidence demonstrating that the average specific CO2 emissions in 2010 were significantly higher than the value indicated in that Regulation.

(2)The Commission has assessed the evidence provided by Piaggio and considers that it is appropriate to correct the value.

(3)Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

In the list in Annex III to Delegated Regulation (EU) No 114/2013, the entry in the second column, with the heading ‘Average                     emissions, (g/km)’, for the make ‘Piaggio’ is replaced by ‘177,00’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 August 2013.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

1

OJ L 145, 31.5.2011, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 38, 9.2.2013, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jacob CAMERON, Jr.

No. 31P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Mark Montgomery, Durham, for Jacob Cameron, Jr.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of January 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 6th day of April 2006."
#### Robert H. Yankelevitz, Respondent, v Mount Sinai Medical Center et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 906]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 6, 2004, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend their answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their motion pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) for leave to amend their answer *(see Kingsland Group, Inc. v J.B. Satcin Realty Corp.,*16 AD3d 380 [2005]; *DeLaurentis v Nager,*302 AD2d 486 [2003]; *Kopel v Chiulli,*175 AD2d 102 [1991]; *Davidian v County of Nassau,*175 AD2d 908 [1991]; *Hypertronics, Inc. v Digital Equip. Corp.,*159 AD2d 607 [1990]). Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
              PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lars H. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cascade Financial
Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

   (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; and

   (c) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

   (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; and

   (b) 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.

Date: May 6, 2004                       /s/ Lars H. Johnson
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Lars H. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
#### William H. Schimek et al., Appellants, v E & R General Construction, Inc., Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 214]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), entered October 28, 2004. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.