alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MAXWELL SCHUMAN & COMPANY v. Theodore EDWARDS and Valerie Edwards.

No. 403P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Michael F. Schultze, Charlotte, for Edwards.

*359Daniel V. Mumford, Amy Pritchard Williams, Charlotte, for Maxwell Schuman & Co.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 663 S.E.2d 329.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of September 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."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20575

Summary Calendar

CARY O SMITH

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DR STANLEY D ALLEN

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CV-2028

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cary O. Smith, Texas prisoner # 732505, appeals the dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action against Stanley D. Allen, a doctor with the University of

Texas Medical Branch. Smith asserted that Allen denied him proper medical

treatment in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court held that

Smith’s allegations failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and

dismissed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20575

2

Smith argues that the district court erred by: dismissing his complaint

without holding a hearing; citing a prior unsuccessful civil rights action that he

had brought; not allowing discovery; and determining that he had not

established deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Smith admits

that he has had two surgeries for his shoulder condition and states that these

surgeries were not successful in alleviating his problems. His assertion that

Allen denied him medical treatment is based on Allen’s determination that

Smith is not a candidate for additional shoulder surgery. Smith’s disagreement

with this determination is insufficientto establish a constitutional violation. See

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839-41, 847 (1994); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920

F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Smith’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts

as a strike under § 1915(g), as does the district court’s dismissal of Smith’s

complaint. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).

Because Smith’s prior action in Smith v. Largent, H-02-CV-1489 (S.D. Tex.

2003), was dismissed for failure to state a claim, he now has accumulated three

strikes. § 1915(g). Accordingly, Smith is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless

he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g); see

Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387-88.

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
----

(2004/C 33 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0699/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 March 2003)

Subject:   Investigation into protection of the ink cartridge market

In mid-May 2002, in the course of a meeting with the assistant attorney-general at the US Justice Department, Mr James, Commissioner Monti indicated that the European Commission would be launching an investigation into the high prices for ink cartridges sold for use with printers. The sale of such cartridges linked to brands may represent a form of distortion of competition. The Commissioner indicated that the obligation to use ink cartridges of the same brand as a particular printer would be investigated very thoroughly.

Has an investigation since been launched into this potential form of distortion of competition?

If so, at what stage is the investigation, and is it already possible to draw provisional conclusions?

If not, why did the Commission not consider it appropriate to launch an investigation, contrary to its earlier intentions and despite the various complaints about high prices for ink cartridges that have been lodged with the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission can confirm that it has recently initiated a case concerning, amongst others, the inkjet cartridges and printers sectors. It is currently analysing the conduct of a number of companies in these markets in light of the Community's competition rules.

The case remains at a preliminary stage of analysis and therefore the Commission is unable to provide further detailed information with regard to its development or scope at this point in time. Nevertheless, were the case to be pursued, the Commission would naturally make public further details of its examination of this issue as soon as it were possible to do so.

----
STATE v. JORDAN.

No. COA08-142.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (98CRS41731, 98CRS41732).

Case reported without published opinion. No error at trial. Vacated and remanded for sentencing.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.4



Amendment to
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
2014 Equity and Incentive Plan
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) has determined that it is in the best interest of the Company that the CF Industries Holdings, Inc. 2014 Equity and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) be amended to revise the tax withholding provisions set forth in Section 8(c) of the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Board has the authority under Section 8(d)(ii) of the Plan to amend the Plan. 


NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 8(d)(ii) thereof, the Plan is hereby amended as set forth below. 


1.    Section 8(c) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


(c)    Taxes. The Company or any Subsidiary of the Company is authorized to withhold from any Award granted, any payment relating to an Award under the Plan, including from a distribution of Stock, or any other payment to a Grantee, amounts of withholding and other taxes due in connection with any transaction involving an Award, and to take such other action as the Committee may deem advisable to enable the Company and Grantees to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. This authority shall include authority to withhold or receive Stock or other property and to make cash payments in respect thereof in satisfaction of a Grantee’s tax obligations. The Committee may provide in the Award Agreement that in the event that a Grantee is required to pay any amount to be withheld in connection with the issuance of shares of Stock in settlement or exercise of an Award, the Grantee shall or may satisfy such obligation (in whole or in part) by electing to have withheld a portion of the shares of Stock otherwise to be received upon settlement or exercise of such Award equal to an amount no greater than the maximum statutory tax rate applicable to such Grantee in all relevant jurisdictions, and in all cases reduced by the amount of any withholding obligation a Grantee satisfies by cash payment to the Company. All Awards made under the Plan are intended to be exempt from, or to comply with, the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and any regulations or guidance promulgated thereunder and the Plan and such Awards shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with such interpretation.


2.    Effect on Plan.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


3.     Effective Date.  The effective date of this Amendment to the Plan shall be July 21, 2016.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative of the Company, effective as of the Effective Date. 
CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS, INC.




By: /s/ Douglas C. Barnard                     
		
	Name:
	Douglas C. Barnard


Title:    Senior Vice President, General Counsel, 
and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT  ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE  FISCAL  QUARTER  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         386,241
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,837,510
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,494,046
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      12,494,046
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        12,494,046
<LOANS>                                     24,875,889
<ALLOWANCE>                                    400,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,698,241
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,334,855
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,416,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            374,793
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,529,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<COMMON>                                         1,958
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,041,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              41,698,241
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                559,602
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              198,419
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                34,969
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               792,990
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             366,368
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,355
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          298,267
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   73,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (700)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                255,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,875
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      25,875
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,897
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    0.75
<LOANS-NON>                                    185,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   239,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               396,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   75,000
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              400,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           400,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        351,000
        



</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00494-CR

Rodney Chase Pettigrew

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 415th District Court

of Parker County (CR11-0767)

December 22, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Anne Gardne r_________

_________ Justice Anne Gardner
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RODNEY ROBINSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1896

[ November 21, 2018 ]

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

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 10

- 18671 CF10A

.

Rodney Robinson, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, T AYLOR and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




**Board
      of Directors and Stockholders**




**GameTech
      International, Inc.**




We
      have
      issued our reports dated January 21, 2008, accompanying the consolidated
      financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting included in the Annual Report of GameTech International, Inc. on
      Form
      10-K for the year ended October 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation
      by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of GameTech
      International, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-122836, 333-72886, and
      333-51411).






**/S/
      GRANT THORNTON LLP**




Reno,
      Nevada




January
      21, 2008




48
**Exhibit
      23.2**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms
      S-8 Nos. 333-51411, 333-72886, and 333-122836) pertaining to the 1997 Incentive
      Stock Plan, 2001 Restricted Stock Plan and Amended and Restated 1997 Incentive
      Stock Plan of GameTech International, Inc. of our report dated February 8,
      2005,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements of GameTech International,
      Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
      October 31, 2006.






**/s/
      ERNST & YOUNG LLP**




Reno,
      Nevada




January
      25, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Herston Eugene BARNES.

No. 519P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Herston Eugene Barnes, Pro Se.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th day of November 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Harnett 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 5th day of February 2009."
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: August                15, 2006 | By:    | /s/                Joseph J. Raymond                 |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |   | Joseph                J. Raymond                     |
|                                       |   | Chairman                of the Board of Directors,   |
|                                       |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer |
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 773/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 773/2014 of 15 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 773/2014                     

# of 15 July 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 15 July 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
CRAWFORD, et al. v. WATLINGTON, et al.

No. 241P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Brenton D. Adams, Dunn, for Alfatir Crawford.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of May 2008 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of October 2008."
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2200Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2200 of 13 November 2015 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission            of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (EUMM Georgia/1/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/2200                     

# of 13 November 2015

# extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (EUMM Georgia/1/2015)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/452/CFSP of 12 August 2010 on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM                           Georgia(1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Decision 2010/452/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third                              paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions concerning the political control and strategic direction                              of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)On 16 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/915/CFSP(2), extending the mandate of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2016.

(3)On 19 December 2014, the PSC adopted Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014(3), appointing Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2014 to 14 December 2015.

(4)The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Kęstutis                              JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia from 15 December 2015 to 14 December 2016,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The mandate of Mr Kęstutis JANKAUSKAS as Head of Mission of EUMM Georgia is hereby extended until 14 December 2016.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 13 November 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 213, 13.8.2010, p. 43.                           

2

Council Decision 2014/915/CFSP of 16 December 2014 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission                              in Georgia, EUMM Georgia (OJ L 360, 17.12.2014, p. 56).                           

3

Political and Security Committee Decision EUMM Georgia/1/2014 of 19 December 2014 on the appointment of the Head of the European                              Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (EUMM Georgia) (OJ L 369, 24.12.2014, p. 78).
STATE v. PAGE.

No. COA07-699.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Caldwell (04CRS52497, 04CRS52498).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4164

_____________________________
J ARRELL A. M ORRIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court fo r Duval County

. Bruce Anderson , Judge

. December 5, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the Court’s order of July 30, 2018, the Court has determined that the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Appellant’ s request for an extension of time to file the initial brief is denied as moot. Any request for belated appeal must be filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

L EWIS , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jarrell A. Morris, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.