alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Alphonso SIMPSON.

No. 592P01-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of April 2008 by Defendant through a post-conviction proceeding *858involving the error constitution United States:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 24, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1045

Lower Tribunal Nos. 81-25758C & 81-27294B

________________

Paul Lewis,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Stephen T. Millan, Judge.

Paul Lewis, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent. 

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

Paul Lewis appeals an order denying (as untimely) a motion to mitigate

sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). While an order
denying, on its merits, a motion to mitigate a sentence is not appealable, see e.g.,

Smith v. State, 902 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), the appeal of an order

dismissing or denying the motion as untimely may be treated as a petition for writ

of certiorari. Iglesias v. State, 76 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). We do so here

and, having reviewed the record, conclude the trial court correctly determined the

motion was untimely. 

Petition dismissed. 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998             APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998             APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,006                     732
<SECURITIES>                                    29,559                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,215                   7,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                       421                     421
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,090                   7,459
<PP&E>                                           2,429                   1,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                     846                     417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,830                  16,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,084                   6,902
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,237                   6,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,830                  16,367
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,662                  21,824
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,564                   7,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,379                  16,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,582                 (1,954)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,582                 (1,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,582                 (1,954)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20                   (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Andrew Lewis WEST, Employee v. CONSOLIDATED DIESEL COMPANY, Employer ACE USA/ESIS, Servicing Agent.

No. 393P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Carolyn T. Marcus, Raleigh, for Diesel Company, et al.

Yolanda T. Nowlin, for West.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of August 2007 by Defendants 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 11th day of October 2007."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Presidio Trust

# AGENCY:

The Presidio Trust. 

# ACTION:

Public notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and availability for public comment on an application from New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for installation of a wireless telecommunications facilities site (“Project”) in The Presidio of San Francisco. The proposed location of the Project is the south side of the MacArthur Tunnel. 

The Project involves (i) installing a 32-foot pole with two sets of antennae panels and power and telecommunications panels, (ii) placing the associated telecommunications equipment within three cabinets on a concrete pad, and (iii) mounting two antennae on the south face of the MacArthur Tunnel wall. Power and telecommunications service will be brought to the site via underground trench. 

*Comments:*                         Comments on the proposed project must be sent to Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052, and be received by October 12, 2005. A copy of Cingular's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. E-mail:                         *scarp@presidiotrust.gov*. Telephone: 415-561-5300.                     

Dated: September 2, 2005. 

Steve Carp, 

Legal Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 05-17899 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             21
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     488
<ALLOWANCES>                                       19
<INVENTORY>                                       261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  916
<PP&E>                                            766
<DEPRECIATION>                                    298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             691
<BONDS>                                           809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          193
<OTHER-SE>                                        430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,239
<SALES>                                         1,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,194
<CGS>                                             304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   271
<INCOME-TAX>                                      122
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               149
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           3
<NET-INCOME>                                      146
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.48


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PL
BRANDS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                          1,366
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,366
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           68,506
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                        9,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      2,128,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    (67,140)
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                120,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (120,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (120,033)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (120,033)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .000



</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 404 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements by September 30, 2007. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2007 

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

TESTER, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require 

the implementation of country of origin labeling requirements by September 30, 2007. 

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 ‘‘Country of Origin La5 beling Act of 2007’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 404 IS

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING 

2 REQUIREMENTS. 

3 Section 285 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

4 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638d) is amended by striking ‘‘Sep5 tember 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2007’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
# CE2004070EN.01002101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/21

---

(2004/C 70 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3851/02

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject:   Kidnapping of Mr Arjan Erkel in the Russian Republic of Dagestan

Subject:

On 12 August 2002 Mr Arjan Erkel, 32, who works for Médecins Sans Frontières Switzerland, was kidnapped by three unknown gunmen in Makhachkala, the capital of the Russian Republic of Dagestan. Since then, nothing more has been heard of him.

Is the Commission prepared to approach the Russian authorities and take steps which may assist his release and return to the Netherlands?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3751/02 and P-3851/02

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

(30 January 2003)

The Commission is extremely concerned at the fate of Arjan Erkel, the Head of mission of MSF-Switzerland who was abducted in Daghestan last 12 August 2002, a few weeks after another humanitarian worker, Nina Davidovitch, was abducted in Chechnya.

The Commission officially reacted through a Presidency declaration, on 26 August 2002, which strongly condemned both abductions and asked for the immediate and safe return of the hostages. In addition, the Union Presidency took the opportunity of the release of two workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who had also been kidnapped subsequently, to reiterate its concerns, on 20 November 2002, and ask for immediate release of both aid workers that remain missing.

In parallel, the Commission is following the case very closely. It has raised the issue in several meetings with the Russian authorities and will continue to do so until the safe release of Arjan Erkel. The fate of both workers was addressed again in Moscow, on 23 December 2002, during a joint demarche of the Union Troika, the United States, Switzerland and the Netherlands to the Deputy Minister for Migration of the Russian Federation, Mr Chernienko. Unfortunately, co-operation from Russian authorities has so far not been as forthcoming as the Commission would have expected. Most recently, on 10 January, Commissioner Nielson took the opportunity of the release of Nina Davidovitch to publicly call for the immediate and safe release of Arjan Erkel.

MSF-Switzerland, funded by the Humanitarian Office through MSF-Holland, was one of the very few international organisations working in Daghestan at the time, providing essential health assistance to the vulnerable Chechen and local population in this poor republic of the Russian Federation. Since Arjan Erkel's abduction, MSF has had to stop all its operations there and its absence is another blow dealt at the victims of the conflict in Chechnya, whom Mr Erkel had courageously gone to Daghestan to help.

---
<PAGE>

                            SOLUTIA INC. 
                              
                            CERTIFICATE 


     I, Karen L. Knopf, Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify that the following is a full, true and
correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Company on February 24, 1999, at which meeting a quorum was present and
acting throughout:  

          RESOLVED, that each officer and director who may be required to
     sign and execute the 10-K or any document in connection therewith
     (whether for and on behalf of the Company, or as an officer or
     director of the Company, or otherwise), be and hereby is
     authorized to execute a power of attorney appointing Karl R.
     Barnickol and Karen L. Knopf, or either of them acting alone, his
     or her true and lawful attorney or attorneys to sign in his or her
     name, place and stead in any such capacity such Form 10-K and any
     and all amendments thereto and documents in connection therewith,
     and to file the same with the Commission or any other governmental
     body, each of said attorneys to have power to act with or without
     the others, and to have full power and authority to do and
     perform, in the name and on behalf of each of said officers and
     directors, every act whatsoever which such attorneys, or any one
     of them, may deem necessary, appropriate or desirable to be done
     in connection therewith as fully and to all intents and purposes
     as such officers or directors might or could do in person.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in my official
capacity and affixed the corporate seal of the Company this 1st day of
March, 1999.  



                                  /s/ Karen L. Knopf
                              _______________________________
                                   Karen L. Knopf 
                                   Assistant Secretary 


SEAL
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2738

D. JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; JOFFREE T. LEGGETT, Individually and as Town Mayor; CHARLES C. JONES, Individually and as Member of Town Council; EDWARD EUBANKS, Individually and as Member of Town Council; WILLIARD ODELL LEWIS, Individually and as Member of Town Council; ANN BROCK, Individually and as formerMember of Town Council; EDWARD PARKER, Individually and as former Member of Town Council; CLIFTON MILLS, SR., Individually as former Member of Town Council; BOB D. HENDERSON, Individually and as former Member of Town Council; JAMES R. FRANCK, Individually and asformer Town Mayor; SHERI M. DAVENPORT, Individually and as former Town Counsel; CAROL M. HOOD, Personal Representative of the Estate ofJames R. Hood; GEORGE W. DAVENPORT, Individually and as former Town Mayor; JAMES BLOODWORTH, Individually and as Town Employee; C. GLENN SPIVEY, I ndividually and as Town Clerk and their successors and agents, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-166-4-H)
Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 21, 199623 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
D. Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carol ina; Dal Floyd Wooten, III, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his civil rights complaint alleging an equal protection violation in his community's provision of trash removal services.We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Willis v. Town of Trenton , No. CA-94-166-4-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 12, 1995). We modify the order, however, to reflect dismissal ofthe action without prejudice so that Appellant may have the opportunity to particularize his complaint and specify the proper defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988); see Gordon v. Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147, 1152-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 439 U.S. 970 (1978). We deny the motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
# CE2004088EN.01033501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/335 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/335

---

(2004/C 88 E/0342)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0896/03

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   The German tax authorities' practices with regard to turnover tax

Subject:

The German tax authorities are increasingly requiring firms not based in Germany to pay German turnover tax when goods are sent from the firm's place of business to customers in Germany. They take the view that sellers based abroad owe German turnover tax because they deliver to German customers. This is also the case when the goods are not transported directly to the German buyer, but placed in a warehouse by the haulage company contracted by the seller for the purpose of checking that the order is complete and in perfect condition. Only once the buyer has paid for the goods and they have been checked does the non-German seller release them from storage, i.e. the buyer collects them or has them collected. The German tax authorities work from the principle that, in spite of there already being a definite buyer, these goods are first transported to Germany for the seller's own purposes. This greatly obstructs intra-Community trade with Germany.

| 1. | How does the Commission view the German tax authorities' interpretation of the law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

How does the Commission view the German tax authorities' interpretation of the law?

| 2. | What measures will the Commission take if it judges that the behaviour of the German tax authorities violates Community legislation on turnover taxes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What measures will the Commission take if it judges that the behaviour of the German tax authorities violates Community legislation on turnover taxes?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

(7 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's question concerns the place where goods are deemed to be supplied when sellers established outside Germany sell to customers resident in Germany if the goods are first placed in the haulage company's warehouse where the buyer comes to collect them.

The answer depends on the circumstances specific to each transaction and the actual terms of the contracts between the sellers subject to VAT and their customers. In particular, the issue is whether the goods were transported as part of the supply or with a view to a possible supply.

The Commission is already aware of the matter raised by the Honourable Member and intends to contact the German authorities to clarify details of the practice.

---