alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
David J. WARD, Employee v. FLOORS PERFECT, Employer, Penn National Insurance, Carrier.

No. 339A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 11, 2008.

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. ___, 645 S.E.2d 109 (2007), affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding an opinion and award filed on 28 October 2005 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 March 2008.

Lennon & Camak, PLLC, by George W. Lennon, S. Neal Camak, and Michael W. Bertics, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Young Moore and Henderson P.A., by Zachary C. Bolen, Raleigh, for defendant-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Conclusions of Law 1 and 2 contained in the Industrial Commission's 28 October 2005 opinion and award are supported by competent evidence but are inconsistent, and the Court of Appeals inappropriately attempted to resolve the inconsistency in its decision. The Industrial Commission is best suited to resolve this discrepancy. *See Harrell v. Harriet & Henderson Yarns,*314 N.C. 566, 574-575, 336 S.E.2d 47, 52 (1985). Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court with instructions to further remand this matter to the Industrial Commission for entry of a new opinion and award determining whether plaintiff has undergone a change of condition affecting wage earning capacity pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 97-47.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FISCAL 1997 FIRST QUARTER CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,794,323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,401,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                    98,450
<INVENTORY>                                  2,043,833
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,630,347
<PP&E>                                       2,131,481
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,081,516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,715,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,790,614
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,634,576
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,820,828)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,715,421
<SALES>                                     15,263,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,263,661
<CGS>                                       13,668,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,668,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,143,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46,841
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,701,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,701,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,701,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Anna M. Levi et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Gerard J. Myrthil et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 41]

*351In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from collecting rent, the plaintiffs Anna M. Levi and John Joseph appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J), dated October 16, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant Anna M. Levi was the administrator of her deceased husband’s estate and was issued letters of administration by the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County. The appellants commenced this action against the defendants for back rent purportedly owed to them, seeking injunctive relief and damages in the sum of $110,000.

The letters of administration issued by the Surrogate’s Court to Anna M. Levi stated that the decree entered authorizes collection of amounts only up to $10,000, and that collection of amounts in excess of that sum required authorization by a further order of the Surrogate. Thus, the appellants were expressly limited to suing for that relief only *(see Central N.Y. Coach Lines, Inc. v Syracuse Herald Co.,*277 NY 110 [1938]; 40 NY Jur 2d, Decedents’ Estates § 1322). Because the appellants sought equitable relief as well as an amount well over $10,000, both of which were outside the authorization conferred by the letters of administration, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
IN RE A.A.R.

No. COA07-280.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Onslow (06J137).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond C. MARSHALL.

No. 228P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Raymond C. Marshall, pro se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of May 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Davie County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy HARRIS.

No. 439P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Jimmy Harris, Pro Se.

Joan Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of September 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Haywood County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
<PAGE>



                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                        THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                 ECONOPHONE INC.

It is hereby certified that:

         1.       The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the
                  "corporation") is Econophone, Inc.

         2.       The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby
                  amended by striking out Paragraph 1 thereof and by
                  substituting in lieu of said Paragraph the following new
                  Paragraph:

                  "1. The name of the corporation is Destia Communications,
                  Inc."

         3.       The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein
                  certified has been duly adopted and written consent has been
                  given in accordance with Sections 228 and 242 of the General
                  Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

Dated as of: January 28, 1999


                                              --------------------------------
                                              By:    Richard L. Shorten, Jr
                                              Title: Senior Vice President and
                                                     General Counsel
**Exhibit 15(a)(1)(v)**

 

[Ernst & YoungLetterhead]

 

 

Report of IndependentAccountants

 

ManagementCRIIMI MAE Services Limited Partnership and Subsidiaries

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanyingreport titled *Report**ofManagement*, that CRIIMI MAE Services Limited Partnership andSubsidiaries (the Partnership) complied with the minimum servicing standardsset forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America’s *Uniform SingleAttestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*****(USAP),(except, for commercial loan and multifamily loan servicing, minimum servicingstandards V.4. and VI.1., which the Mortgage Bankers Association of America hasinterpreted as inapplicable to such servicing) during the year ended****December31, 2002.  Management is responsible forthe Partnership’s compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion about the Partnership’s compliance based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about thePartnership’s compliance with those minimum servicing standards and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion.  Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Partnership’scompliance with the minimum servicing standards.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Partnership compliedwith the aforementioned minimum servicing standards during the year endedDecember 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

This report is intended solely for the information and use ofmanagement and the investors of the Partnership’s servicing portfolio and isnot intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specifiedparties.

 

 

Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

February 26, 2003

 

----
**Exhibit 15(a)(1)(i)**

 

Wachovia Bank, National Association 

8739 Research Drive, URP4 

Charlotte, NC 28288-1075
|  | **WACHOVIA  SECURITIES** |
|--|--------------------------|

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 1997 by andamong First Union Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, WachoviaBank, National Association (formerly know as First Union National Bank) asMaster Servicer (the “Master Servicer”), CRIIMI MAE Services LimitedPartnership as Special Servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association (successorin interest to State Street Bank and Trust Company) as Trustee, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 1997-C1 (the “Agreement”).Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 3.13 ofthis Agreement, Timothy E. Steward and Clyde M. Alexander, Directors of theMaster Servicer, do hereby certify that:

 

1.               A review of the activities of the MasterServicer during the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 andof its performance under the Agreement during such period has been made underour supervision; and

 

2.               To the best of our knowledge, based on suchreview, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2004through December 31, 2004; and

 

3.               The Master Servicer has received no noticeregarding qualification, or challenging the status of any portion of the TrustFund as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmentalagency or body.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 11th of March2005

 

 
| /s/ Timothy  E. Steward         |   | /s/ Clyde  M. Alexander         |
|--------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Timothy  E. Steward, Director        |   | Clyde  M. Alexander, Director        |
| Wachovia  Bank, National Association |   | Wachovia  Bank, National Association |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Adrian Devon MURRAY.

No. 237P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 7, 2008.

Adrian D. Murray, Pro Se.

Emery E. Milliken, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 5th day of February 2008 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th day of February 2008."
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
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 Eden  Bioscience Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the  period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  Rhett R. Atkins,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant  to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  July 26,
2005

| | /s/
      Rhett R. Atkins                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| |                                            
| | Rhett
      R. Atkins                      
| | President
      and Chief Executive Officer

-28-

---
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2013 of 10 April 2013 making imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia            subject to registration (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2013                     

# of 10 April 2013

# making imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia subject to registration (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1198/2013 of 25 November 2013 terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of                                 biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia and repealing Regulation (EU) No 330/2013 making such imports subject to                                 registration.
IN RE N.S.P.

No. COA07-891.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2007.

Certification Date January 7, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (03JT496, 03JT497).

Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. BARBEE.

No. COA07-12.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Stanly (05CRS2566, 05CRS2567, 05CRS2568, 05CRS2569, 05CRS2570, 05CRS2571, 05CRS2572, 05CRS2573, 05CRS2574, 05CRS2575, 05CRS2576, 05CRS2577, 05CRS2578, 05CRS2579, 05CRS2580, 05CRS2581, 05CRS2582, 05CRS2583, 05CRS51055, 05CRS51056, 05CRS51057, 05CRS51058, 05CRS51059, 05CRS51060, 05CRS51061, 05CRS51062, 05CRS51063, 05CRS51064).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10357

Summary Calendar

 

DAVID LOPEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL.,

Defendants, 

TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS STATE OF;

C. BELL, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-242

- - - - - - - - - -

September 24, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court must examine the basis of its own jurisdiction on its own motion, if necessary. 

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The document which has been

construed as a notice of appeal in this case, district court

docket number 41, primarily sought reconsideration of the

district court’s order and judgment of dismissal. Because the
No. 97-10357

-2-

document did not clearly evince the litigant’s intent to appeal,

it cannot serve as a valid notice of appeal. See id.

Apparently, document number 41 was filed within 10 days of entry

of the magistrate judge’s order and judgment. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). If so, it should be regarded as

a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the district court

has not disposed of the Rule 59(e) motion, and because there is

no other document in the record which could serve as a notice of

appeal from that judgment, the court does not have jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
STATE v. FLOWERS.

No. COA06-1651.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Edgecombe (05CRS7461, 05CRS7462).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Mayo, III, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 163]

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Stephen R. Sirkin, J.), entered January 2, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea and waiver of indictment are vacated, the superior court information is dismissed and the matter is remitted to Wayne County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). As the People correctly concede, the waiver of indictment and superior court information are defective and, therefore, the plea is a nullity and must be vacated. Where, as here, a defen*1317dant is charged with a class A felony, the defendant cannot validly waive indictment or consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information *(see*CPL 195.10 [1] [b]; *People v Trueluck,*88 NY2d 546, 549-550 [1996]; *People v Ulloa,*260 AD2d 212 [1999]; *People v Ford,*159 AD2d 933, 934 [1990]). Thus, we reverse the judgment, vacate defendant’s plea and waiver of indictment, dismiss the superior court information and remit the matter to County Court for further proceedings consistent with our decision herein. Present—Scudder, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          32,648
<SECURITIES>                                25,907,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                  615,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,486
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,571,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          566,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,005,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,571,906
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               677,402
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                631,708
<INCOME-TAX>                                   631,708
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            631,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   631,708
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 24**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby make, constitute and appoint Craig J.Tuttle and/or Debra A. Schneider as his lawful agent and attorney-in-fact solely for the purpose of executing and filing all reports on Form 10-K relating to the year ending December 31, 2007, and any amendments thereto, required to be filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission by Transgenomic, Inc. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed thisPower of Attorney as of the 22nd day of January, 2008. 

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby make, constitute and appoint Craig J. Tuttle and/or Debra A. Schneider as his lawful agent and attorney-in-fact solely for the purpose of executing and filing allreports on Form 10-K relating to the year ending December 31, 2007, and any amendments thereto, required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Transgenomic, Inc. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the 31st day of January, 2008. 

 

/s/ JEFFREY L. SKLAR

Jeffrey L. Sklar

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby make, constitute and appoint Craig J. Tuttle and/or Debra A. Schneider as his lawful agent and attorney-in-fact solely for the purpose of executing and filing allreports on Form 10-K relating to the year ending December 31, 2007, and any amendments thereto, required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Transgenomic, Inc. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the 14th day of January, 2008. 

 

/s/ RODNEY S. MARKIN

Rodney S. Markin

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby make, constitute and appoint Craig J. Tuttle and/or Debra A. Schneider as his lawful agent and attorney-in-fact solely for the purpose of executing and filing allreports on Form 10-K relating to the year ending December 31, 2007, and any amendments thereto, required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Transgenomic, Inc. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the 29th day of January, 2008. 

 

/s/ GREGORY T. SLOMA

Gregory T. Sloma

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

The undersigned does hereby make, constitute and appoint Craig J. Tuttle and/or Debra A. Schneider as his lawful agent and attorney-in-fact solely for the purpose of executing and filing allreports on Form 10-K relating to the year ending December 31, 2007, and any amendments thereto, required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Transgenomic, Inc. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney as of the 17th day of January, 2008. 

 

/s/ FRANK WITNEY

Frank Witney