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

No. COA08-88.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Pitt (06CRS6994, 06CRS6996, 06CRS6997, 06CRS6998, 06CRS6999, 06CRS7000, 06CRS53242, 06CRS53243).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Dana Marie RIBELIN (fka Creel) v. Phillip Ray CREEL.

No. 112A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Robert L. Inge, Salisbury, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Phillip Creel, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Arlaine Rockey, Marshall, for Ribelin, Dana Marie (fka Creel).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 25th of March 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 27th of March 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Plaintiff shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
STATE v. ROSALES-VILLA.

No. COA07-1144.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Wayne (05CRS58661, 05CRS58662).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Devon BARE.

No. 397P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Michael J. Reece, Smithfield, for Bare.

Martin T. McCracken, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of September 2008 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 9th day of October 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1785/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Structural Funds

What is the current procedure for making public the amounts and timing of Structural Funds to regions? Are there breakdowns available for regions, the Euro constituencies of MEPs or parts of Euro constituencies?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission collects and publishes financial information according to the nature of the intervention concerned. For interventions that are delivered at regional level under Objectives 1 and 2 of the Structural Funds, financial data are available at the level of each regional programme. These data are published on the website of the Directorate general for Regional Policy (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/index_en.htm). For specific information on the interventions supported by the European Social Fund, financial data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs (http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/esf2000/member_states-en.htm). For interventions supported by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Fisheries (http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/policy_en.htm). Finally, for rural development programmes supported by the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), data can be found on the website of the Directorate General for Agriculture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ agriculture/rur/indexfr.htm).

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the management of Structural Funds is highly decentralised and the managing authorities at Member State and regional level are responsible for the selection of individual projects for support. In conformity with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1159/2000 on information and publicity measures to be carried out by the Member States concerning assistance from the Structural Funds (1), these authorities are required to inform the general public as well as possible beneficiaries about Structural Funds programmes, resources allocated and application procedures.

----

(1)OJ L 130, 31.5.2000.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Antonio MARIN, II.

No. 96P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Marin, Jose Antonio (II).

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th of March 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Cumberland 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 20th of August 2015."
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SECTION906 CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connectionwith the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, SeniorFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ James C. Minerly     |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |
|   | James C. Minerly         |
|   | Senior Financial Officer |
|   | April 14, 2004           |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to enherent Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Melvin Earl HAGANS.

No. 124P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Bruce Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Hagans.

Elizabeth Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 704.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of March 2008 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 9th day of October 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 884/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 884/2014 of 13 August 2014 imposing special conditions governing the import of            certain feed and food from certain third countries due to contamination risk by aflatoxins and repealing Regulation (EC) No            1152/2009 (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 884/2014                     

# of 13 August 2014

# imposing special conditions governing the import of certain feed and food from certain third countries due to contamination                        risk by aflatoxins and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 of 22 October 2019 on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency                                 measures governing the entry into the Union of certain goods from certain third countries implementing Regulations (EU) 2017/625                                 and (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EC) No 669/2009,                                 (EU) No 884/2014, (EU) 2015/175, (EU) 2017/186 and (EU) 2018/1660 (Text with EEA relevance).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 8, 2016

p0229

Order 

Clerk

March 8, 2016

150684(88)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150684

COA: 315379

Oakland CC: 2012-240805-FC

ALAN CRAIG WOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

24, 2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Johnson, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 785]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Hemmett, Jr., J.), rendered December 24, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a three-count indictment with rape in the first degree, rape in the third degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to a prison term of eight years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is not preserved for our review inasmuch as he did not make a motion to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v MacCue,*8 AD3d 910, 911 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 708 [2004]; *People v Ward,*2 AD3d 1219, 1219 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 808 [2004]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt such as to negate an essential element of the crime *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *People v Ward, supra*at 1219). In any event, the transcript of the plea proceeding discloses that County Court conducted a thorough inquiry and accepted defendant’s plea only after it was satisfied that the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. Lastly, we reject defendant’s contention that his prison term was harsh and excessive and that extraordinary circumstances, consisting of his prospects for successful rehabilitation and his lack of a criminal record, warrant a reduction of the sentence in the *1150interest of justice. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement and, given the violent nature of the crime, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed (see *People v Butterfield,*9 AD3d 682 [2004]; *People v Gambaccini,*2 AD3d 1065, 1067 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 739 [2004]; *People v Krzykowski,*293 AD2d 877 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 643 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Joseph HORRY, Jr. v. David H. WOODBURY, Individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Ruth N. Horry.

No. 198A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 6, 2009.

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. ___, 659 S.E.2d 88 (2008), reversing and remanding orders entered on 21 September 2005 and 8 October 2005 by Judge Steve A. Balog in Superior Court, Durham County, and instructing the trial court to dismiss plaintiff's claims. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 November 2008.

Brady, Nordgren, Morton & Malone, PLLC, by Travis K. Morton, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hedrick Murray Bryson Kennett Mauch & Connor, PLLC, by Josiah S. Murray, III, Durham, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

REVERSED.
----

(2004/C 33 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2324/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Is the British Government justified in paying different pensions to different categories of persons working in the British National Health Service?

The British Government rewards workers who in their National Health Service have served a minimum of twenty years looking after patients suffering from mental illness by counting each of those years as double for purposes of calculating pensions.

My constituent served in the mental health field from 1994 to 1999 but then transferred into the field of general nursing — so under these rules her 1994-1999 years would not count double.

Is this discrimination unfair and illegal, possibly bearing in mind the court case Coloroll Pension Trustees Ltd versus Russell in which the statement was made that ‘trustees of an occupational pension fund are bound to do everything in their power to ensure compliance with the principles of equal treatment under Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome’?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

On the basis of the information provided, the Commission cannot establish whether there is an infringement of Community law in the area of equal treatment between women and men. It would ask the Honourable Member to provide more details concerning the case of the constituent in question.

----
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 676

AN ACT

To provide that the Executive Director of the Inter-American 

Development Bank or the Alternate Executive Director 

of the Inter-American Development Bank may serve on 

the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 676 ES

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO APPOINT EXECUTIVE DIREC2 TOR OR ALTERNATE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

3 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT 

4 BANK TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 

5 INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION. 

6 The third sentence of section 401(g) of the Foreign 

7 Assistance Act of 1969 (22 U.S.C. 290f(g)) is amended 

8 to read as follows: ‘‘Three members of the Board shall 

9 be appointed from among the following: officers or employ10 ees of agencies of the United States concerned with inter11 American affairs, the United States Executive Director of 

12 the Inter-American Development Bank, or the Alternate 

13 Executive Director of the Inter-American Development 

14 Bank.’’. 

Passed the Senate March 15, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 676

AN ACT

To provide that the Executive Director of the Intertors of the Inter-American Foundation. opment Bank may serve on the Board of Direc- Executive Director of the Inter-American Devel- American Development Bank or the Alternate
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 244/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 244/2014 of 7 March 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Strachitunt (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 244/2014                     

# of 7 March 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Strachitunt (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Strachitunt’ was published                              in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Strachitunt’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 March 2014.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3.****Cheeses**U.K.

#### ITALYU.K.

Strachitunt (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12 2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 290, 5.10.2013, p. 5.
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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1603-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1603-DR), dated August 29, 2005, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 4, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC  20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 29, 2005:

The parishes of Ascension, Assumption, East Baton Rouge, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson, Lafourche, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St Charles, St. Helena, St. James, St. John, St. Martin, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Washington, and West Baton Rouge for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.)

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 05-17997  Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
COWART v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

No. 87P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 17, 2015.

Sandra S. Cowart, Greensboro, for Cowart, Sandra S.

*75Jason Kenneth Purser, Charlotte, for Shapiro & Ingle, LLP.

Lauren Loftis, Charlotte, for Bank of America, N.A.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2015 by Plaintiff to Order Urgent Permanent Preliminary Injunction Barring Sale of Home:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of June 2015."