alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Rogelio Lopez JUAREZ.

No. 567P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Rogelio Lopez Juarez, Pro Se.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of June 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order (and supporting memo) of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*493"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of October 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Duplin 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 6th day of March 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of October 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina 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 6th day of March 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2107/03

by Isabelle Caullery (UEN) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject:   Non-governmental organisations in Moldova

Can the Commission tell us which types of programme, project and/or budget lines can be called upon to support the activities in Moldova of NGOs set up under Moldovan law?

Can it also state the criteria that the NGOs must meet before they can apply for subsidies from the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is committed to supporting non-governmental organisations (NGOs) directly, through projects and grants, and to involving them whenever possible in its initiatives.

The Delegation of the Commission to Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus is running a programme for small grants to NGOs in the framework of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. In addition, the Institutional Building Partnership Programme (IBPP) is designed to strengthen NGOs and other local initiatives through partnership with similar bodies in the Union and neighbour countries. Refinancing the IBPP is foreseen in the draft Action Programme (AP) 2003 for Moldova.

The draft AP 2003 for Moldova also envisages:

The Community is furthermore providing financial support through the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) for actions against trafficking in human beings and women, and tackling the various aspects of drug use and trafficking. Both actions have a heavy involvement of NGOs.

As regards the conditions for obtaining grants, NGOs have to satisfy the eligibility criteria set out in specific detail in each call for proposals. These criteria are announced together with the call for proposals, are transparent, and accessible to all potential applicants. They generally include conditions on the status (non-profit-making), geographic location, trade record and financial viability.

----
STATE v. PERRY.

No. COA08-676.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Franklin (05CRS50157).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
# CE2004078EN.01015501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/155

---

(2004/C 78 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegally-sourced timber

Subject:

The Commission will be aware that the world's rainforests are rapidly diminishing, especially in the Amazon Basin and Indonesia. Much of the timber from these illegal operations finds its way into Europe.

What steps has the Commission taken to outlaw illegally-sourced timber in Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

(7 October 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern at the rate of deforestation of the world's rainforests. According to research conducted by the Commission's Joint Research Centre, the highest rates of deforestation are in South-east Asia (0,91 % per annum). Because it has a larger area, the deforestation rate for the Amazon Basin is less in percentage terms, but similar in absolute terms to that of South-east Asia, at about 2,5 million hectares (ha) per annum.

The Union is undoubtedly a market for some of the illegally harvested timber traded from these regions. However, in the case of South-east Asia, East Asian countries such as China and Japan constitute the main market for exports of tropical timber. In the Amazon basin most of the timber is consumed internally — one widely quoted estimate being that 80 to 90 % of Brazilian timber is consumed within Brazil. Generally speaking, the extent to which illegal logging accounts for deforestation is difficult to separate from other factors such as agricultural expansion and infrastructure development.

Aware of the impact of illegal logging not only on the environment, but also in undermining good governance and the rule of law, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) -Proposal for an EU Action Plan’ on 21 May 2003 (1). The Action Plan describes a series of proposed measures to reduce illegal logging in affected countries and to exclude illegally harvested timber from the Union. These include a proposal for voluntary, but binding agreements to be made with interested countries, allowing for the identification of legally harvested timber, including legislation allowing for the exclusion of timber from these countries not identified as being legal under such agreements. At the time of writing, the Commission is awaiting the views of the Council and the Parliament on the FLEGT Communication before it can take any substantial further steps in pursuit of these proposals.

1

---

(1)  COM(2003) 251 final.

1

---
FRED MEYER, INC.  AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(In thousands, except ratio)
<TABLE>

                                     1993       1994       1995       1996         1997 
                                ---------   --------   --------   --------    ---------

<S>                             <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>
 Income before taxes &
   extraordinary charge         $ 120,502   $ 11,561   $ 48,849   $ 94,428    $ 173,769
 Add fixed charges                 92,179     93,090    114,231    117,678      178,968
                                ---------   --------   --------   --------    --------- 
 Earnings for computation
   purposes                       212,681    104,651    163,080    212,106      352,737
 Fixed charges (interest on
   debt, expensed or
   capitalized)                    93,868     95,610    117,860    117,799      179,512 
                                ---------   --------   --------   --------    ---------
 Ratio of earnings to
   fixed charges                     2.27       1.09       1.38       1.80         1.96 
                                =========   ========   ========   ========    =========
</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAWRENCE BRAYNEN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2275

[ January 2, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Thomas J. Coleman

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 01

- 016274CF10A

.

Kevin J. Kulik and Ashley D. Kay of Kevin J. Kulik, P.A., Fort

Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appe llee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
MAP SUPPLY, INC. v. INTEGRATED INVENTORY SOLUTIONS, LLC.

No. COA07-733.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Davidson (06CVS1168).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James C. Minerly                                    
|James C. Minerly Senior Financial Officer March 31, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent, Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Stephen C. NICHOLSON, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Geraldine Anne Nicholson v. Arleen Kaye THOM, M.D.

No. 378P11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James W. Musselwhite, Lumberton, Clifford Britt, Winston-Salem, John Allyn Chilson, for Nicholson, Stephen C., et al.

Dan J. McLamb, Raleigh, Andrew C. Buckner, for Thom, Arleen Kaye (M.D.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of December 2014 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."

Ervin, J. recused.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the
Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President 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 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    PAMELA
FREDETTEPamela FredetteChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


March 30, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be
retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# CE2004078EN.01012801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/128

---

(2004/C 78 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2566/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject:   EU aid for construction projects in Italy

Subject:

The firm Planten en Bloemen, based at Batzenhofen (Germany), commissioned the firm Europepartner, owned by Geom. Cataffo Doriano and based in Salerno (Italy), to build a warehouse in Täfertingen (Germany), an investment totalling EUR 850 000. The construction firm considered that there was a possibility of EU aid and, according to its own information, applied for it. The project, however, was not completed and the whereabouts of the Italian builder is unknown.

| 1. | Is there any possibility in general of such construction projects receiving aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there any possibility in general of such construction projects receiving aid?

| 2. | If so, under which programme could the aid be paid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, under which programme could the aid be paid?

| 3. | Was an application made for aid for the above project? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Was an application made for aid for the above project?

| 4. | If so, when and want amount was paid out? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If so, when and want amount was paid out?

| 5. | Were accounts duly kept? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Were accounts duly kept?

| 6. | Is the Commission aware that the project was not completed? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the Commission aware that the project was not completed?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

(23 September 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the area in question is not among those defined as eligible for European regional aid under the Structural Funds, nor is it covered under the rural development programmes of the CAP. Accordingly, there is no Community financial instrument available to the Bavarian authorities to support the project in question.

The Commission is informed that the project is not yet complete, but would point out that only the investor (in this case Planten en Bloemen, Batzenhofen) may apply for Community co-financing via the Bavarian authorities, and not the individual building contractor.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Marion BOOE, Jr.

No. 559P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Duncan B. McCormick, Lillington, for Booe.

Barry S. McNeill, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of December 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 5th day of February 2009."
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated February 28, 2008accompanying the consolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAIT Financial Trust (formerly RAIT Investment Trust)and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-149340; File No. 333-144603, effective onJuly 16, 2007; File No. 333-139948, effective on January 12, 2007; File No. 333-139889, effective on January 10, 2007; File No. 333-103618, effective on March 14, 2003; File No. 333-69366, effective on October 18, 2001; and File No. 333-78519,effective May 14, 1999) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005; File No. 333-109158, effective on September 26, 2003; File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001).

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

February 28, 2008
#### Duane Reade, Respondent and Counterclaim Defendant, v Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs, and James W. Daly, Inc., et al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 416]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered January 31, 2005, which denied the motion by defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs James W. Daly, Inc. (Daly) and Whitmire Distribution Corporation (Whitmire) for leave to amend their pleading to assert a counterclaim for breach of contract, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

This Court’s prior order granting partial summary judgment dismissing Daly’s and Whitmire’s counterclaim against Duane Reade for an account stated (12 AD3d 224 [2004]) does not preclude granting Daly and Whitmire leave to amend their pleading to assert a counterclaim for breach of the underlying contract. Since “[a]n account stated is an agreement, *independent of the underlying agreement,*regarding the amount due on *270past transactions” *(G.W. White & Son v Gosier,*219 AD2d 866, 867 [1995] [emphasis added]), the uncontroverted proof of Duane Reade’s timely objection to Daly’s and Whitmire’s statement of the alleged balance of indebtedness—the sole ground on which we dismissed the account stated counterclaim *(see*12 AD3d at 225)—has no bearing on the viability of the proposed counterclaim for breach of the underlying contract. Accordingly, the application for leave to amend the pleading to assert a cause of action that has not previously been at issue *(cf. Buckley & Co. v City of New York,*121 AD2d 933, 934-935 [1986]) is not barred by the doctrine of law of the case. Neither is the application for leave to amend barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, to the extent, if any, the latter two doctrines may apply to a ruling made within the same litigation *(but see People v Evans,*94 NY2d 499, 502 [2000] [res judicata and collateral estoppel “generally deal with preclusion after judgment,” i.e., after a claim or issue has been adjudicated “in a prior action”]). Finally, since Duane Reade has not shown that adding the proposed counterclaim will cause it any cognizable prejudice, the motion for leave to amend the pleading should have been granted *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York,*60 NY2d 957, 959 [1983]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 28, 2009 

d1021 

Order 

 

October 28, 2009 

138353 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138353 

 COA: 289337 

Kalamazoo CC: 08-000841-FC 

JOHN LEE BRINSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DeBERRY v. KELLOGG SALES CO.

No. COA08-498.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (07CVS4583).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SPENCER.

No. COA08-817.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Cleveland (06CRS53923, 06CRS53924, 06CRS4758).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and Remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Sierra, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 1]

*810Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 18, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years and 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting testimony regarding defendant’s previous relationship with a girl of unspecified age who was “too young for him.” Viewed in the context of other evidence, this testimony was relevant to explain the chain of events that led to, and motivated, defendant’s assault upon the victim *(see e.g. People v Newby,*291 AD2d 460 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 679 [2002]). Even assuming that the jury might infer that defendant had engaged in uncharged criminal activity, the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. Defendant’s argument concerning the prosecutor’s summation comment on this evidence is unpreserved and unavailing.

This record does not support defendant’s claim that the prosecutor commented in summation on defendant’s assertion of his right to remain silent. Defendant made a voluntary postarrest statement to the police and never declined to answer questions. The prosecutor’s summation comments regarding the content of defendant’s statement were responsive to defendant’s cross-examination and summation *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Concur— Friedman, J.P, Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.