alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MAGNOLIA MANUFACTURING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company, and Erie Insurance Group.

No. 525A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2007.

*444Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 633 S.E.2d 841 (2006), affirming in part and reversing in part an order granting summary judgment for defendants and denying summary judgment for plaintiff entered on 20 April 2005 by Judge Michael R. Morgan in Superior Court, Orange County, and remanding for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 January 2007.

The Brough Law Firm, by Robert E. Hornik, Jr., Chapel Hill, for plaintiff-appellee.

Bailey & Dixon, L.L.P., by David S. Coats, Raleigh, for defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.

Chief Justice PARKER and Justice HUDSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 358/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 358/2013 of 18 April 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 358/2013                     

# of 18 April 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 18 April 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. SPENCER.

No. COA05-1169.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 20, 2006.

Certification Date July 10, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS99261, 03CRS99262, 03CRS99264).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. OXENDINE

No. COA06-718.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from New Hanover (05CRS51253).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Dismissed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2330

_____________________________

MICHAEL WADE BARFIELD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County.

Terry Lewis, Judge.

February 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Michael Wade Barfield, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
STATE v. Shamonte Arnell GREEN.

No. 345P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2006.

Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Green.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, 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 28th day of June 2006 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 219/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 219/2013 of 12 March 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 219/2013                     

# of 12 March 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 12 March 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. AUSTIN

No. COA06-415

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS68745, 05CRS68746, 05CRS68747, 05CRS68913).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
Donna WORNSTAFF v. Don Ray WORNSTAFF.

No. 558A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 9, 2007.

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. ___, 634 S.E.2d 567 (2006), affirming an order entered on 11 August 2005 by Judge Amber Davis in District Court, Dare County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2007.

Irvine Law Firm, PC, by Stephanie B. Irvine, Williamston, for plaintiff-appellee.

*302James R. Wills, III, Harbinger, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Justice HUDSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. The remaining members of the Court are equally divided, with three members voting to affirm and three members voting to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is left undisturbed and stands without precedential value. *See State v. Harrison,* 360 N.C. 394, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006); *Crawford v. Commercial Union Midwest Ins. Co.,* 356 N.C. 609, 572 S.E.2d 781 (2002).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.10      CONSENT OF ISABELLE ROY   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (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 following technical reports:  - Rapport technique et recommandations, Campagne dexploration 2012, Projet Nichicun, Mines Virginia inc. completed in February 2013; and  - Technical Report and Recommendations, Reconnaissance Program, Trieste Project, Québec, Virginia Mines Inc. completed in January 2013  concerning mineralized material in the Nichicun and Trieste properties for the Company (collectively the Reports). Portions of the Reports are summarized, for the Nichicun property, under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.4.4 Geological Setting; 3.4.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.4.6 Mineralization and for the Lac Gayot property, under headings 3.5.4 Geological Setting, 3.5.5 Exploration and Drilling, and 3.5.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (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 13, 2013
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                    YOUNG BROADCASTING INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             -----------------------------------
                                                               March 31,              March 31,
                                                                 2001                   2002
                                                             -------------         -------------
<S>                                                             <C>                   <C>
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING
    FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD ...........................           16,546,190            19,634,016

ISSUANCE OF 27,000 AND 250 SHARES OF COMMON
      STOCK UPON EXERCISE OF OPTIONS IN 2001 AND 2002               14,367                   206

ISSUANCE OF 9,817 AND 15,484 SHARES OF COMMON
      STOCK TO THE COMPANY'S DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
      PLAN IN 2001 AND 2002..........................                7,308                11,699
                                                             -------------         -------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OF COMMON
       STOCK OUTSTANDING ............................           16,567,865            19,645,921
                                                             =============         =============

LOSS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS BEFORE
      EXTRAORDINARY ITEM ............................        $ (19,785,152)        $ (31,261,404)

DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS, NET OF TAX .................           (1,799,685)            2,886,254

EXTRAORDINARY ITEM ..................................          (12,436,550)                  --

CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE ..............                 --            (308,174,055)
                                                             -------------         -------------
NET LOSS ............................................        $ (32,221,702)        $(336,549,205)
                                                             =============         =============

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE:

     BASIC AND DILUTED
           LOSS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS ..........        $       (1.08)        $       (1.59)
           DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS, NET OF TAX ......                (0.11)                 0.15
           EXTRAORDINARY ITEM .......................                (0.75)                 --
           CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE ...                                     (15.69)
                                                             -------------         -------------
       NET LOSS .....................................        $       (1.94)        $      (17.13)
                                                             =============         =============
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Timmy Wayne SPEIGHT.

No. 491PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2006.

On order of the United States Supreme Court entered 30 June 2006 granting the State's petition for writ of certiorari to review our decision reported in 359 N.C. 602, 614 S.E.2d 262 (2005), vacating said judgment and remanding the case to this Court for further consideration in light of *Washington v. Recuenco,* 548 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006). Heard on remand in the Supreme Court 17 October 2006.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration of this case in light of *Washington v. Recuenco,* 548 U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it held defendant's sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 166 N.C.App. 106, 177-18, 602 S.E.2d 4, 12 (2004), and remand to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision in *State v. Timothy Earl Blackwell,* ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2006 WL 3690958 (2006). However, the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding no prejudicial error in defendant's convictions as specified in that opinion remains undisturbed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 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 tr i a l 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3055 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3055

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rate of the 
   excise tax on certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2008

 Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Smith) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rate of the 
   excise tax on certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF RATE OF EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS 
              DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to arrows) is amended by redesignating 
subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after 
subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Exemption for certain wooden arrow shafts.--
                Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft 
                consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or 
                artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft 
                (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a 
                finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the 
                manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly--
                            ``(i) measures \5/16\ of an inch or less in 
                        diameter, and
                            ``(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow 
                        described in paragraph (1)(A).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2460

In re: RAYMOND GARFIELD BUTLER , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ( 1:08

- cr
- 00442

- JFM

- 4 ; 1:13

- cv
- 03804

- JFM )

Submitted : September 6, 2018 Decided: September 11, 2018

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.
Raymond Garfield Butler , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Garfield Butler petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket
reveals that the district court has ruled on the Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Butler ’ s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We deny Butler’s motion for appoi ntment of counsel as moot and grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis

. 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.
PETITION DENIED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5763 

To temporarily delay application of proposed changes to the Departmental 

Appeals Board within the Department of Health and Human Services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr. WALZ of 

Minnesota) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 

Ways and Means and Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To temporarily delay application of proposed changes to the 

Departmental Appeals Board within the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON IMPLEMENTATION 

4 OF CHANGES TO THE DEPARTMENTAL AP5 PEALS BOARD WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF 

6 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Health and Human Services shall not, prior to 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5763 IH

1 the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment 

2 of this Act, take any action (through promulgation of reg3 ulation, issuance of regulatory guidance, or other adminis4 trative action) to finalize or otherwise implement provi5 sions contained in the proposed rule published on Decem6 ber 28, 2007, on pages 73708 through 73720 of volume 

7 72, Federal Register (relating to the Departmental Ap8 peals Board established in the Department of Health and 

9 Human Services). 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5569 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Received 

AUGUST 1, 2008 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To extend for 5 years the EB–5 regional center pilot 

program, and for other purposes. 

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


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

HR 5569 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EB–5 REGIONAL CENTER PILOT 

2 PROGRAM. 

3 Section 610(b) of the Departments of Commerce, 

4 Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

5 Appropriations Act, 1993 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘shall set aside’’ and all that follows 

7 through ‘‘eligible for admission’’ and inserting ‘‘shall set 

8 aside 3,000 visas annually for 20 years to include such 

9 aliens as are eligible for admission’’. 

10 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

11 It is the sense of the Congress that, to the extent 

12 practicable, qualifying investments under section 610 of 

13 the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Ju14 diciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 

15 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) should be made in targeted employ16 ment areas (as defined in section 203(b)(5)(B)(ii) of the 

17 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

18 1153(b)(5)(B)(ii))), including rural areas (areas other 

19 than an area within a metropolitan statistical area or 

20 within the outer boundary of any city or town having a 

21 population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent 

22 decennial census of the United States)) and high unemVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:19 Aug 02, 2008 Jkt 069002 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5569.RFS H5569

erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

HR 5569 RFS 

1 ployment areas (areas that have experienced unemploy2 ment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate). 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS