alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the matter of A.G.A., A.N.P.

No. COA15-110.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Sharp, Michael, & Graham, LLP, by Steven D. Michael, for petitioner-appellee Dare County Department of Social Services.

Manning, Fulton & Skinner, P.A., by Michael S. Harrell, for Guardian ad Litem.

W. Michael Spivey, for respondent-appellant mother.

INMAN, Judge.

Respondent-mother appeals from the district court's judgment terminating her parental rights to her children A.G.A. and A.N.P. After careful review, we affirm.

**Factual and Procedural Background**

The Dare County Department of Social Services ("DSS") took non-secure custody of A.G.A. and A.N.P ("the children") pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-502 (2013) after it had filed petitions in October 2010 alleging they were neglected and dependent juveniles. By order filed 27 May 2011, the trial court adjudicated the children neglected and dependent. The court placed custody of the children with DSS and ordered respondent-mother to comply with her case plan. After holding a permanency planning hearing, the trial court ceased reunification efforts and ordered a permanent plan of adoption for the children in an order filed 28 September 2012.

On 31 December 2012, DSS filed a petition to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights, alleging as grounds neglect and failure to pay the cost of care. *See*N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) and (3) (2013). The district court conducted a termination hearing on multiple dates from November 2013 to September 2014. By judgment filed 23 October 2014, the court made extensive findings of fact based upon clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, and concluded as a matter of law that both grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother's parental rights. The trial court further determined that termination of respondent-mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. *See*N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-1110 (2013). Respondent-mother appeals.

**Discussion**

Counsel filed a no-merit brief on respondent-mother's behalf stating that he conducted "a conscientious and thorough review of the record on appeal" and was unable to identify any issues of merit on which to base an argument for relief. He requests this Court conduct an independent examination of the case. N.C.R.App. P. 3.1(d) (2013).

Though counsel was unable to uncover any issues of merit on which to base his brief, he directs our attention to potential issues on appeal and acknowledges they would not alter the ultimate result.

After reviewing the transcript and record, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment terminating respondent-mother's parental rights.

**Conclusion**

Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Judges ELMORE and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by respondent-mother from judgment entered 23 October 2014 by Judge Amber Davis in Dare County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 May 2015.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.30

                   MODIFICATION TO SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of June 1, 1998 by and between Pixel
Translations, a division of Cornerstone Imaging, Inc., a Delaware corporation 
("Pixel") and Kofax Image Products, a California corporation ("Kofax") to 
modify the Software License Agreement between the parties dated June 1, 1993 as 
previously amended on July 1, 1995 and June 1, 1996 as follows:

Section 9.1 is amended for the purpose of extending the term of the agreement 
to read as follows:

9.1  Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date set 
forth above and shall continue for a period of one year from that date (the 
"Initial Term"). Unless Kofax or Pixel gives written notice that it elects not 
to renew the Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the 
Initial Term, the Agreement shall automatically renew for an additional one 
year term (a "Subsequent Term"). Similarly, unless Kofax or Pixel gives written 
notice that it elects not to renew the Agreement at least thirty (30) days 
prior to the end of a Subsequent Term, the Agreement shall automatically renew 
for an additional one year Subsequent Term; provided, however, that the 
Agreement shall not be automatically renewed under any circumstances for more 
than a total of six Subsequent Terms.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in their 
respective names and by their duly authorized officers.

                              Pixel Translations
                              1710 Fortune Drive, Suite 200
                              San Jose, CA 95131
                              USA

                              By:  /s/ [SIG]
                                 ------------------------------

                              Title:  Vice President
                                    ----------------------------

                              Kofax Image Products
                              3 Jenner Street
                              Irvine, CA 92718
                              USA

                              By:  /s/ [SIG]
                                 -------------------------------

                              Title:  Manager, Product Marketing
                                    ----------------------------




                                      -1-
# Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (repealed)Show full title

Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC)            No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders            and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 15 May 2014

# amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when                        crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose                                 nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that                                 requirement.
Robert A. IZYDORE v. Alade TOKUTA, Caesar Jackson, Bernice D. Johnson, North Carolina Central University, and the State of North Carolina.

No. 323P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

**<page vol="778" reporter="S.E.2d" no="93" /> *ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of September 2015 by Plaintiff 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 of November 2015."
# CE2004088EN.01044301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/443 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/443

---

(2004/C 88 E/0451)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2972/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   EU funding in Kenya

Subject:

Where have EU funds given to Kenya, particularly to the Gitaru Sub-location, gone and how are they tracked? What mechanisms exist to monitor the dispersal of these funds? If no such mechanism exists, could the Commission explain why this is the case? Furthermore, is the Commission able to provide information on the source of funding for places in secondary education for children in Kenya and the Gitaru Sub-location?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

(24 October 2003)

The basis of cooperation between the Community and Kenya is the Country Strategy Paper (CSP), which includes an indicative programme. The CSP has been negotiated with the Government of Kenya in support of sectoral and macroeconomic policies. The 9th European Development Fund (EDF) Country Strategy Programme approved by the Commission on 16 September 2003 (EUR 215 million of programmable aid for the period 2003-2007) mainly focuses on general budget support, rural development and road transport. Education is not a focal sector for Community co-operation. A copy of the CSP is forwarded directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

All actions financed by the Community are subject to detailed appraisal to establish clearly identified objectives, beneficiaries and results to be achieved by a set of activities. They also have monitoring schemes adapted to the different activities, providing regular operational and financial information. This may also include external monitoring. Furthermore, Community programmes are, in general, subject to mid-term and end of term evaluations in order to learn lessons and improve performance.

On the financial side, increasing use is being made of regular external audits to confirm that funds have been utilised correctly. The Finance and Contract section of the Delegation in Kenya (deconcentrated since April 2002) also carries out its own controls on the use of funds.

Whilst education is not a focal sector for Community support in Kenya, assistance to a certain number of individual schools has been provided under the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF), which aims to support self help programmes. A list of secondary schools supported by CDTF is being sent directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The CDTF has not supported any projects in Gitaru sub-location to date.

---
<TABLE>
Exhibit No. 11. Statement re:  Computation of Per Share Earnings for the six and
                three months  ended June 30, 1999 and  1998 (in thousands except
                per share data).
<CAPTION>

                                                       Six Months Ended            Three Months Ended
                                                           June 30,                     June, 30,
                                                     ----------------------     ----------------------
                                                       1999         1998           1999         1998
                                                     ---------    ---------     ---------    ---------

<S>                                                  <C>          <C>           <C>            <C>
     Net income (loss)                               $ 1,706      $   373       $   902        $   (65)
                                                     =======      =======       =======        =======



     Basic weighted average shares outstanding         3,321        3,731         3,332          3,705

     Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
        effect of stock options                           94          168            93            178
                                                     -------      -------       -------        -------

     Diluted weighted average common
        shares outstanding                             3,415        3,899         3,425          3,883
                                                     =======      =======       =======        =======


     Basic earnings (loss) per share                 $   .51      $   .09       $   .27        $  (.02)
                                                     =======      =======       =======        =======

     Diluted earnings (loss) per share               $   .50      $   .09       $   .26        $  (.02)
                                                     =======      =======       =======        =======

</TABLE>

                                                  22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,732
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,333)
<INVENTORY>                                     27,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,365
<PP&E>                                         309,797
<DEPRECIATION>                               (117,476)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,197
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (120,395)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,768
<SALES>                                        541,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               541,103
<CGS>                                          484,679
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  529,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    311
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,325)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,165,112
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         190,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 28,202,158
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      12,414,524
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        12,253,359
<LOANS>                                    104,235,293
<ALLOWANCE>                                    693,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,880,648
<DEPOSITS>                                 109,817,011
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,800,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,876,430
<LONG-TERM>                                 16,569,719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,866
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,807,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             151,880,648
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,085,395
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              699,723
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,785,118
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,386,090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,742,880
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,042,238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   55,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (17,160)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                143,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (558,189)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (558,189)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (368,227)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.617
<LOANS-NON>                                    204,697
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               234,368
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               646,091
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   18,436
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,525
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              693,180
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        693,180
        

</TABLE>
RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

  CERTIFICATION OF SCOTT H. RECHLER, CO-CEO OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
        THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Scott H. Rechler, CO-CEO of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. the sole general
partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the "Company"), certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  August 8, 2003


               RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                   By: Reckson Associates Realty Corp., its sole general partner

                                 By /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Scott H. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

Stratus Services Group, Inc.  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the annual report of Stratus Services Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael A. Maltzman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|                         |  |     |  |                                                                                                               
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: December 24, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/MICHAEL A. MALTZMANMichael A. Maltzman Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---

QuickLinks
----

(2004/C 33 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/03

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Possible lifting of fish meal ban

As imported commodities have now been checked for MMBM (mammalian meat and bone meal) at the time of entry into the EU for around two years, can the Commission give an account of any positive findings since the introduction of the checks classified by commodity?

Further, as there is now also a new method of analysis which distinguishes fish meal and meat and bone meal which has been ringtested with positive results, will the Commission review its position and consider lifting the temporary ban on fish meal in ruminant diet?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

In accordance with point 2 in Annex I to Commission Decision 2001/9/EC (1), each consignment of imported fishmeal shall be analysed to exclude the presence of mammalian proteins. Member States have reported the result of 10 407 analyses on the presence of animal proteins in feed materials sampled in 2001 and 2002. The frequency of animal proteins prohibited by Council Decision 2000/766/EC (2) was 1,5 % in 2001 and 0,64 % in 2002. Separate data on the number of samples of fishmeal, and of the frequency of mammalian proteins in fishmeal are not available. Since notifications for feed were introduced in the Rapid Alert System in 2002, there has been one notification which informed on the presence of mammalian proteins in fishmeal.

Fishmeal itself is not considered as a risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is the control of the feed. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Results of a recent ring trial indicate that 50 % of the laboratories failed to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the official detection method. Research to improve the method is ongoing.

It therefore seems appropriate to reconsider the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed only when improved control measures are available or in the light of new scientific developments and, where appropriate, the outcome of a risk assessment.

A Commission working document outlining the state of play of the feed ban will be forwarded to the Parliament and the Council in the coming weeks.

----

(1)  Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal, OJ L 2, 5.1.2001.

(2)  Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

----
**Exhibit 99.1**

**Littlefield Corporation  August 13, 2002  Exhibit 99.1 to 2nd Quarter 2002 10-QSB**

 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form  10-Q complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report  fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results  of operations of the Company.**August 13, 2002**

**/s/ JEFFREY L MINCH**  Jeffrey L. Minch   President and Chief Executive Officer

**August 13, 2002****/s/ KATHRYN L SCANLON**  Kathryn L. Scanlon   Secretary and Treasurer   (Principal financial and accounting officer)
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 3, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

David Weiss, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of June 2015 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of June 2015."