alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE D.B.

No. COA06-1426.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Cumberland (03JT86, 03JT87).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
HOSPICE AT GREENSBORO, INC. d/b/a Hospice and Palliative Care of Greensboro and Hospice of the Piedmont, Inc., Petitioners v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Facility Services, Licensure and Certification Section and North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Facility Services, Certificate of Need Section, Respondents and Carrolton Home Care, Inc. d/b/a Community Home Care and Hospice, Respondent Intervenors.

No. 585P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Maureen D. Murray, Susan M. Fradenburg, Allyson Jones Labban, Greensboro, for Hospice at Greensboro, et al.

June S. Ferrell, Assistant Attorney General, for NCDHHS.

Marcus C. Hewitt, Kevin W. Benedict, Raleigh, for Carrolton Home Care, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners and Respondents on the 16th day of November 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 8th day of March 2007."
NOTE
  Company JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A. Lender Credit Agreement
 Section 2.04(f)
   [Remainder of page left blank intentionally; signature page follows.]




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO
 Amount ofPrincipal or
    
    OutstandingEnd of
    
    Interest
    
    PrincipalType of
    
    Amount of
    
    Interest
    
    Paid This
    
    Balance
    
    NotationDate
    
    Loan Made
    
    Loan Made
    
    Period
    
    Date
    
    This Date
    
    Made By
STATE v. SCRIVEN.

No. COA07-797.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Hoke (06CRS50067, 06CRS50068, 06CRS50069, 06CRS50073).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended March 22, 2005 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2005 |  | /s/ John A. Beckert                  
|                  |  | John A. Beckert                      
|                  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. Devozeo Demontra PERSON.

No. 620A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 3, 2008.

Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 653 S.E.2d 560.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of January 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of January 2008."
PLOTT v. BOJANGLE'S, et al.

No. 55A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 17, 2007.

Jolinda J. Babcock, Winston-Salem, Eleasa H. Allen, for Bojangle's, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of May 2007 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Plott) shall have up to and including the 15th day of June 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of May 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of American Skiing Company

     In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheet and the related
consolidated statements of operations, of changes in shareholders' equity and of
cash flows present fairly, in all material  respects,  the financial position of
American Skiing Company and its subsidiaries at July 27, 1997 and July 26, 1998,
and the results of their  operations  and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended July 26, 1998 in conformity  with  generally  accepted
accounting principles.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's  management;  our  responsibility  is to  express  an opinion on these
financial  statements  based on our  audits.  We  conducted  our audits of these
statements  in accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards  which
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable  assurance about
whether the financial  statements are free of material  misstatements.  An audit
includes  examining,  on a test  basis,  evidence  supporting  the  amounts  and
disclosures in the financial  statements,  assessing the  accounting  principles
used and  significant  estimates made by management,  and evaluating the overall
financial  statement  presentation.   We  believe  that  our  audits  provide  a
reasonable basis for the opinion expressed above.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, MA
October 14, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,350
<PP&E>                                          45,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                (32,737)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,887,425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,387
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,792
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,546,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,887,425
<SALES>                                        388,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               388,443
<CGS>                                          232,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  232,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               502,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (353,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (353,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (353,936)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Guidant Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ronald W. Dollens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1350), to the
best of my knowledge that:

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

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

/s/ Ronald W. DollensChief
Executive Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 14 - 00291 - CR

ROBBIN RAY DAVIS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1065 305D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1

---------- Appellant Robbin Ray Davis pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child, a second degree felony

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2011 ). The trial court deferred adjudication of Davis’s offense and placed him on community supe rvis ion for a term of seven years. The State subsequently filed a petition to proceed to adjudication , alleging Davis had violated three of his

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

com munity

- supervision conditions. Davis pleaded true to two of the alleged
violations , including failing to co mplete his community

- service hours. The trial court found all three allegations to be true, adjudicated Davis guilty, and sentenced him to twenty years’ confinement. This appeal followed. Davis’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to wi thdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel ’ s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See
386 U. S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State , counsel notified Davis of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, provided him a form motion for pro se acc ess to the appellate record that lacked only Davis’s signature and the date, provided instructions to file the pro se form within ten days and gave him this court’s address, and informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this cour t hold the appeal to be frivolous. See 436 S.W.3d 31 3, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Davis the opportunity to file a brief on his o wn behalf, but he did not do so. As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of t he record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only3

then may we gr ant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’s judgment

.

/s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 26, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51411-51412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17302]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Public Meeting of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises all interested persons of the location of 
the September 8, 2005, public meeting of the President's Advisory Panel 
on Federal Tax Reform. This meeting was previously announced in 70 FR 
49704 (August 24, 2005).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 8, 2005, in 
Washington, DC, and will begin at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel, 
2660 Woodley Road, NW., Washington, DC 20008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Panel staff at (202) 927-2TAX 
(927-2829) (not a toll-free call) or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f59c9b939ab581948d8790939a879885949b9099db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3aaada5ac83b7a2bbb1a6a5acb1aeb3a2ada6afeda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a> 
(please do not send comments to this box). Additional information is 
available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.


[[Page 51412]]


    Dated: August 25, 2005.
Mark S. Kaizen,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-17302 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-33-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Requint ARTIS.

No. 17P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Gregory Requint Artis.

Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 641 S.E.2d 314.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of March 2007 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 27th day of June 2007."
STATE v. Jeremy Dushane MURRELL.

No. 484A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Paul Green, Durham, for Jeremy Dushane Murrell.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 21st day of September 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of September 2007."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133940 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 133940 

 COA: 276900 

Kent CC: 05-011749-FH 

 05-012024-FC 

RICARDO CONTRERAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00571

- CR

The State of Texas v. Olin Anthony Robinson

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Cause No. 05

- 5

- 7221

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 26, 2014
In the Matter of J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M.

No. 366A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 21, 2007.

Tyrone C. Wade, Charlotte, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Teresa M. Sprain, Raleigh, Matthew McKay, Sarah Motley, Charlotte, for Guardian ad Litem.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of November 2007 by Respondent (Mother) to Continue oral argument:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of November 2007."
GRINER v. GRINER.

No. COA06-1579.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 6, 2007.

Certification Date November 26, 2007.

Appeal from New Hanover (06CVD2342).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
GOLDS v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC.

No. COA06-1385.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from NC Industrial Affirmed Commission (I.C. 950746).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**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 Annual Report of AboveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G.
      LaPerch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, except to the extent disclosed therein; 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:
                May 13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                William G. LaPerchWilliam
                G. LaPerch
              Chief
                Executive Officer
P u rsuan tt o 5th C i r. R. 47. 5, t h e court h as determ i n ed t h at t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed ci rcum st an ces setf

ort h i n 5th C i r. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40210 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. G E O R G E R IC H A R D C H A P M A N , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R

- 619- 1

B ef ore JO L L Y , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Aj u ryf ou n dG eo rg e R i ch a rdC h a p m a n gu i l ty of po sse ssion w i th in ten t t o di s t r ibut e 5
. 9 ki l o gr am s o f c o c ai ne . H e no w a ppe al s hi s c o nvi c t i o n a nd r e s ul t i ng 12 1- m o nt h pr i s o n s e nt e nc e . Chap m an ar gue s t hat , i n l i ghto f t he rec ent Supr e m e Cour tde c i s i o n i n Flores - Figu eroa v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. C t
. 1886 ( 20 09 ) , t he ev i den ce w as i ns uf f i c i e ntt o s upp o r thi s c o nvi c t i o n b e c aus e t he G o v e r n m e n t d idn o t p r o v e b e y o n da r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e k n e w th e s p e c ific United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40210

2 t yp e an d qu an t i t y of con t rol l ed su bstance he p osses sed. I n t h e al t erna t ive, Ch a p m a n a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p l a i n l y e r r e d i n fa i l i n g t o i n s t r uc tt he j ur y t hati tha d t o f

i nd t hathe kne w t he s pe c i f i c type an d qua nt i t y o f dr ug he p o s s e s s e d

. T h e s e is s u e s a r e fo r e c lo s e db ycu r r e n t c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t, s ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G am ez- G on zalez , 319 F. 3d 695, 6 9 9 -700 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (hol di ng t hat know l edge of

dr ug t ype orquant i t y i s notan el em entof an of fens e under21 U

. S. C. § 8 4 1 ) , whi c h ha s no t b e e n o v e r r ul e dby Flores - Figu eroa . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Be t anc o urt , 5 86 F

. 3d3 03 , 3 08

- 09 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9)

. Ac c o r di ngly, t he j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.