alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HAYES v. ALLSTATE INS. CO., et al.

No. 579P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of December 2007 by Plaintiff for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of October 2008."
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-37207, 333-64135 and 333-54440 of CNA Surety Corporation and subsidiaries on
Forms S-8, filed on October 3, 1997, September 24, 1998, and January 26, 2001,
respectively, of our report dated March 12, 2004, which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change
in accounting for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets in 2002,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CNA Surety Corporation and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2004
IN RE L.M.S.L.

No. COA08-1056.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Yadkin (07J18).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 4, 2009

0122 

# Order

February 4, 2009

136612

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136612 COA: 284409 Jackson CC: 06-003998-FH 06-004751-FC SYLVESTER WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of People
v Jackson (Docket No. 135888) is pending on ap peal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolv e an issue raised in the pres ent application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in
that case
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
                                                                                                                         EXHIBIT 12


                                                            SOLUTIA INC.

                                       COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                       (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)



<CAPTION>
                                                    2001             2002            2003            2004             2005
                                                 -----------    -------------   -------------   --------------   -------------
<S>                                              <C>            <C>             <C>             <C>              <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations,
   before income taxes and equity
   earnings (loss) from affiliates (1) .....       (111)             (32)           (482)            (296)            (71)

Add:
     Fixed charges..........................         83               98             131              125              95
     Amortization of capitalized interest...          7                7               6                7               5
     Dividends from affiliated companies....         30               25               -                -               -

Less:
     Interest capitalized...................         (2)              (1)             (1)              (3)             (3)
                                                 ---------    -------------   -------------   --------------   -------------
          Income as adjusted................          7               97            (346)            (167)             26
                                                 =========    =============   =============   ==============   =============

Fixed charges
        Interest expensed and capitalized...         72               85             121              116              87
        Estimate of interest within rental
           expense..........................         11               13              10                9               8
                                                 ---------    -------------   -------------   --------------   -------------
               Fixed charges................         83               98             131              125              95
                                                 =========    =============   =============   ==============   =============

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (2)......       0.08             0.99           (2.64)           (1.34)           0.27


<FN>
(1) Includes restructuring and other items of $15 million for the year ended
    December 31, 2005, $141 million for the year ended December 31, 2004,
    $343 million for the year ended December 31, 2003, $17 million for the
    year ended December 31, 2002, and $86 million for the year ended December
    31, 2001.

(2) Earnings for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002,
    would have to be $69 million, $292 million, $477 million, and $1 million
    higher, respectively, in order to achieve a one-to-one ratio.
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1793

___________

James R. Guglielmino, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

City of Kansas City, Missouri, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

Brandon Norwat, Brandon Police * Appeal from the United States

Officer; D. Budd, Police Officer, * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri. 

Defendants, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Board of Police Commissioners of *

Kansas City, Missouri, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

One Unidentified Kansas City, *

Missouri Police Officer; Kelly *

Moorhouse, Commissioner, in both *

her individual and official capacity, *

 *

Defendants. *

___________

 Submitted: September 28, 1999

 Filed: October 12, 1999

___________
1The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri. 

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, James R. Guglielmino appeals the district

court’s1 orders granting summary judgment to defendants City of Kansas City, Missouri

and the members of its Board of Police Commissioners, and an earlier order of the

court granting the Board judgment on the pleadings. After de novo review, we find the

district court’s orders were proper for the reasons stated by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17932]


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

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 a public meeting 
of the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform.

DATES: This meeting will be held on Friday, September 23, 2005. The 
meeting will be held via teleconference and will begin at 10 a.m. 
eastern daylight time. Interested parties will be able to listen to the 
meeting. Call-in information will be posted on the Panel's Web site, 
http://www.taxreformpanel.gov, at a later date.

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#a9c0c7cfc6e9ddc8d1dbcccfc6dbc4d9c8c7ccc587cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ff6f1f9f0dfebfee7edfaf9f0edf2effef1faf3b1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a> 
(please do not send comments to this box). Additional information is 
available at http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose: The September 23 meeting is the 
thirteenth meeting of the Advisory Panel. At this meeting, the Panel 
will continue to discuss issues associated with reform of the tax code. 
There is a possibility that this meeting will not take place as 
scheduled. Please check the Panel's web site for updated information.
    Comments: Interested parties are invited to call into the 
teleconference to listen to the meeting; however, no public comments 
will be heard at the meeting. Any written comments with respect to this 
meeting may be mailed to The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax 
Reform, 1440 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 2100, Washington, DC 20220. 
All written comments will be made available to the public.
    Records: Records are being kept of Advisory Panel proceedings and 
will be available at the Internal Revenue Service's FOIA Reading Room 
at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1621, Washington, DC 20024. The 
Reading Room is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday except holidays. The public entrance to the reading room 
is on Pennsylvania Avenue between 10th and 12th streets. The phone 
number is (202) 622-5164 (not a toll-free number). Advisory Panel 
documents, including meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes, will 
also be available on http://www.taxreformpanel.gov.

    Dated: September 6, 2005.
Mark S. Kaizen,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-17932 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4811-33-P


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

No. 489P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 649 S.E.2d 902.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th day of October 2007 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*434"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of' October 2007 by State of NC 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 June 2008."
MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, LLC. et al. v. SADLER.

No. 204P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 14, 2015.

Zara Ellis Sadler, for Sadler, Zara Ellis.

Mountain Villages, for Mountain Villages, LLC.

Lori Richards, for Mountain Villages, LLC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the emergency motion filed on the 13th of July 2015 by Plaintiffs:

> "Motion Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of July 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Calvin Lewis MOORE, Jr.

No. 144P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

M. Alexander Charns, Durham, for Moore, Calvin Lewis (Jr.).

J. Joy Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 24th of April 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 24th of September 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of April 2015 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
**COLOMBIA ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Colombia Energy Resources, Inc., a Delawarecorporation, owns 99% of Energia Andina Santander Resources Cooperatieve U.A., a company formed under the laws of the Netherlands(the “Dutch Subsidiary”), and 100% of Colombia CPF LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Delaware LLC”).The Delaware LLC owns the remaining 1% of the Dutch Subsidiary. The Dutch Subsidiary owns all of the outstanding shares of EnergiaSantander Resources Andina S.A.S, a Spanish corporation, which in turn owns 100% of Colombia Clean Power SAS (f/k/a Energia AndinaSantander Resources SAS), a Colombian company.
In re D.L.W., D.L.N.W., V.A.W.-252P15-1.

No. 252P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 22, 2015.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for Worth, Dammien Lamar.

Jeffrey William Gillette, for Wade, Marisha Nicole.

Jamie L. Hamlett, for Alamance County DSS.

Derrick J. Hensley, GAL Appellate Counsel, for D.L.W., et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Petitioner and GAL for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of July 2015."
STATE v. CURRY.

No. COA07-1064.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Cleveland (07CRS208, 07CRS209).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
#### Wendy Schiffmacher, Respondent, v Peter M. Schiffmacher, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 848]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John E O’Donnell, J.), entered June 22, 2004. The judgment, inter alia, equitably distributed the marital property.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by providing in the eighth decretal paragraph that plaintiff is awarded 20% of the value of defendant’s enhanced earning capacity and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment in this divorce action, defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff 70% of the value of the parties’ investment and savings accounts. We reject that contention. It is well settled that the provision in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (c) that marital property be “distributed equitably between the parties” does not require equal distribution *(see Arvantides v Arvantides,*64 NY2d 1033, 1034 [1985]). In the absence of an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the court’s equitable distribution of *1387that marital property *(see Bossard v Bossard,*199 AD2d 971 [1993]; *Elkaim v Elkaim,*176 AD2d 116, 119 [1991], *appeal dismissed and lv dismissed*78 NY2d 1072 [1991]). Here, the record establishes that the court properly considered the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d), including the fact that plaintiffs contributions to the parties’ investments were significantly greater than defendant’s contributions *(see Niland v Niland,*291 AD2d 876, 877 [2002]).

We further reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in determining the value of his master’s degree in business administration. “The value of [the degree] may be measured by simply comparing the average lifetime income of a college graduate and the average lifetime earnings of a person holding such a [degree] and reducing the difference to its present value” *(McSparron v McSparron,*87 NY2d 275, 286 [1995], *rearg dismissed*88 NY2d 916 [1996]). Plaintiffs expert utilized that method in determining the value of defendant’s degree, and defendant presented no expert testimony that would support a different valuation. We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in awarding plaintiff one half of the value of defendant’s enhanced earning capacity arising from the degree. In light of plaintiffs modest contributions to defendant’s degree, we conclude that the court should have awarded plaintiff only 20% of the value of defendant’s enhanced earning capacity *(see generally Farrell v Cleary-Farrell,*306 AD2d 597, 599 [2003]; *Barbuto v Barbuto,*286 AD2d 741, 743 [2001]; *Brough v Brough,*285 AD2d 913, 916 [2001]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                           INNOVA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Alexandre Moreira Penna da Silva, the Chief Executive Officer of Innova, S.
de R.L. de C.V. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.    The Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2004, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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 results of operation of the Company.

Date:  June 13, 2005

                                            /s/ Alexandre Moreira Penna da Silva
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Alexandre Moreira Penna da Silva
                                            Chief Executive Officer
# CE2004078EN.01005601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/56

---

(2004/C 78 E/0054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1927/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Bovine and porcine protein in chicken

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the BBC's Panorama programme of 22 May 2003 which reported that Dutch chicken contained protein from beef and pork, although this was not indicated on the label? It was also claimed that Dutch companies were using proteins which could no longer be traced by such bodies as the Food and Veterinary Office. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the BBC's Panorama programme of 22 May 2003 which reported that Dutch chicken contained protein from beef and pork, although this was not indicated on the label? It was also claimed that Dutch companies were using proteins which could no longer be traced by such bodies as the Food and Veterinary Office.

| 2. | Is the Commission aware of these practices? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware of these practices?

| 3. | Are such practices acceptable and safe for consumers? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are such practices acceptable and safe for consumers?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1998 FORM 10-Q OF JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          73,477
<SECURITIES>                                     2,644
<RECEIVABLES>                                  254,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,142
<INVENTORY>                                    136,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               503,412
<PP&E>                                       1,500,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                 671,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,753,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          267,656
<BONDS>                                        530,708
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,753,479
<SALES>                                        389,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,336
<CGS>                                          293,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  293,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,713
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       27,409
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,994
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
In the Matter of D.G.

No. 391A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 29, 2008.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill, for Juvenile.

Ann M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of September 2008 by Appellant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Appellant (D.G.) shall have up to and including the 15th day of October 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in *723conference this the 29th day of September 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Chris Sealeath MILLER.

No. 14P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Chris Sealeath Miller, Pro Se.

Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd day of May 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, McDowell 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 December 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. O'Reynold Jamaar LENNON.

No. 45P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Marilyn G. Ozer, for Lennon, O'Reynold Jamaar.

Brandon L. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 29th of January 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of January 2015 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 10th of June 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.