alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Keith A. LEAK.

No. 206A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Narendra Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for Leak, Keith A.

Ebony J. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

*836Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 22nd of June 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:

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements of Twin City Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiaries in the filing to which this schedule is an
exhibit and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,429
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,880
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               350
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 21,779
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             0
<LOANS>                                     75,943
<ALLOWANCE>                                    149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,932
<DEPOSITS>                                  89,624
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,467
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,000
<COMMON>                                     1,273
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             106,932
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,020
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,041
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                93
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,154
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,066
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,156
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,998
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  108
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              11 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,326
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,326
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .67 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .65 <F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.97
<LOANS-NON>                                      0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               327
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  178
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              149
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           149
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
<FN>
<F1>  Restated for adoption of SFAS 128
</FN>
        

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



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (116)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,135
<PP&E>                                           6,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,113)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,099
<OTHER-SE>                                       (650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,485
<SALES>                                         19,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,557
<CGS>                                           15,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    264
<INCOME-TAX>                                       105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       159
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06



</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2303

_____________________________
B ILLY L EE B OONE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jan Shackelford , Judge

. October 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , O STERHAUS , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________2 Billy Lee Boone, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
# C_2023261EN.01004701.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/47

---

Action brought on 13 June 2023 — J. García Carrión v EUIPO — Calipso (LimoLife)

(Case T-324/23)

(2023/C 261/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: J. García Carrión, SA (Jumilla, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Calipso SRL (Afumati, Romania)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LimoLife — Application for registration No 18 352 014

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2023 in Case R 1258/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 1258/2022-1 is dismissed, reject Opposition No B 3 142 838, and grant the contested mark in its entirety in respect of all the goods in question; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 1258/2022-1 is dismissed, reject Opposition No B 3 142 838, and grant the contested mark in its entirety in respect of all the goods in question;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. BELL.

No. COA08-281.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Brunswick (03CRS2212, 03CRS2213, 03CRS2215, 03CRS2216).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
RAMBOOT, INC. d/b/a B & R Lanes; Berley L. Buck, Individually; and Cassie L. Buck, Individually v. Robert V. LUCAS and Lucas, Bryant, Denning & Ellerbe, P.A. (formerly Lucas, Bryant, Denning & Edwards, P.A.).

No. 155P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Larry C. Economos, Greenville, for Ramboot, Inc., et al.

Ronald C. Dilthey, Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Lucas, et al.

*651Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 640 S.E.2d 845.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th day of March 2007 by Plaintiffs 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."
STATE v. BRIGHTWELL.

No. COA07-556.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Davidson (05CRS61088, 05CRS61089).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
SMITH v. SMITH.

No. COA08-78.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Union (04CVD483).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded in part.
# C_2023173EN.01002501.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/25

---

Action brought on 17 March 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-167/23)

(2023/C 173/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should

| — | declare that:
  by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to establish a surveillance system of invasive alien species of Union concern and to adopt, implement and transmit action plans for tackling priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that:

by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to establish a surveillance system of invasive alien species of Union concern and to adopt, implement and transmit action plans for tackling priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 (1) and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and

| — | order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission takes the view that the Hellenic Republic has yet to establish (and makes no provision in its existing legal order for) a surveillance system of invasive alien species of Union concern, as required by Article 14(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014. In the absence of any surveillance system, the Hellenic Republic has also infringed the substantive requirements to be met by such a surveillance system pursuant to Article 14(2) of that regulation.

Furthermore, the European Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic has failed either to develop or implement one single action plan or a set of action plans, and has failed to transmit those plans to the Commission without delay. Consequently, the Hellenic Republic has failed to comply with Article 13(2) and (5) of the regulation in question.

On those grounds, the Hellenic Republic has infringed Article 14(1) and (2) and Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of alien species (OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35).

---
Bruce BARBEE v. John Linwood JOHNSON and wife Barbara H. Johnson.

No. 319P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Bradley Schulz, L. Lamar Armstrong, Smithfield, for John and Barbara Johnson.

George Collins, Jacksonville, for Barbee.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 92.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 30th day of June 2008 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 5th day of February 2009."
STATE v. Darrett CROCKETT.

No. 29PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 6, 2015.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Crockett, Darrett.

*839Lauren Tally Earnhardt, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 5th of August 2015 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of August 2015."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 18th day of August 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                          43,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,198
<PP&E>                                           7,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,750)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,181
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,609)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,948
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (37,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. BENNETT.

No. COA07-1545.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CRS50340).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
MEARES v. DANA CORPORATION, et al.

No. 502P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 12, 2008.

Margaret M. Kingston, Charlotte, for Dana Corporation, et al.

Vernon Sumwalt, Charlotte, for Meares.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 666 S.E.2d 819.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of November 2008 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 12th day of November 2008."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Karen K. Ford, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 207]

Spain, J.

Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 2001, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision, and (2) from a letter written on behalf of the Board, dated July 7, 2003, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

Claimant’s appeals represent the latest in a succession of challenges to a May 2001 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which denied her application for training adjustment assistance benefits under the federal Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC § 2102 *et seq.).*
      ***
      **This Court has since affirmed that decision as supported by substantial evidence (12 AD3d 955 [2004]). Claimant now appeals both the Board’s July 2001 denial of her application to reopen and reconsider its May 2001 decision and a July 2003 letter from a Board staff member stating that the Board would not entertain a second application by claimant requesting the same relief.

Inasmuch as we have already considered and rejected the merits of claimant’s appeal from the Board’s May 2001 decision, we are limited on the present appeals to a determination of whether the Board’s subsequent refusals to reopen and reconsider that decision constituted an abuse of discretion (see *Matter of Tucek [Big V Supermarkets—Commissioner of Labor],*277 AD2d 628, 629 [2000]; *Matter of Wolff [Commissioner of Labor],*252 AD2d 714 [1998]). Claimant, who points to no new evidence not already fully considered by the Board but, rather, bases her contentions on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Board’s continuing jurisdictional authority to reopen prior decisions (see Labor Law § 534; 12 NYCRR 463.6; *Matter of Moore [County of Monroe—Hartnett],*155 AD2d 721, 722 [1989]), has failed to demonstrate such abuse here. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s July 2001 decision denying claimant’s application to reopen. With regard to claimant’s subsequent attempt to obtain the same relief by appealing from the July 2003 letter, which was not issued by a Board member and merely references the July 2001 decision, we note that such document does not constitute an appealable decision by the Board and, therefore, claimant’s appeal therefrom must be *1228dismissed *(see*Labor Law § 624; 12 NYCRR 460.3, 464.1; *Matter of Drummond v Desmond,*295 AD2d 711, 713 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 615 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the July 17, 2001 decision is affirmed, without costs. Ordered that the appeal from the July 7, 2003 letter is dismissed, without costs.

The underlying facts of this ongoing dispute are set forth in this Court’s prior order settling the records in two other appeals by claimant (5 AD3d 929 [2004]).
NORAL OSWALD SCOTT

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1462

_______ ____________________/

Opinion filed June 2, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. Ross M. Goodman , Judge

.

N oral Oswald Scott, pro se, Appellant.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Def ender,

Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief,

Criminal Appeals, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS

, and ROWE

, J J

. , CONCUR.
----

(2004/C 65 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Council

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Exemption from VAT on postage for charities

Further to the Commission proposal to put VAT on postage and recognising that this would impose a severe financial burden on charities that depend on direct mail fundraising and are not eligible to reclaim VAT in the same way as ordinary businesses.

Can the Council advise whether it will be possible for charities that have the specific difficulty of not being able to reclaim VAT under Irish tax law to secure an exemption from this EU legislation?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Commission proposal to which the Honourable Member refers in her question is currently being examined within the Council's bodies.

Until those proceedings have been completed, the Council cannot reply to the Honourable Member's question.

----