alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LANDOVER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. SANDERS, et al.

No. 13P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 15, 2016.

Nelson G. Harris, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Landover Homeowners Association, Inc.

Matthew D. Quinn, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Sanders, Thomas B., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of January 2016 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of January 2016."
Opinion filed February 14, 2013



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________



### No. 11

- 07

- 00 030

- C R

__________

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.

HARVILL BLACKSHERE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR17

- 488

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N O N R E M A N D

On original submission, this court set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the

cause for further proceedings. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted the petition for

discretionary review filed by Harvill Blackshere, reversed the judgment of this court, and

remanded the cause to this court for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

State v. Blackshere , 344 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). In accordance with the decision of

the Court of Criminal Appeals, we dismiss the ap peal for want of jurisdiction.

As noted by the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State was not authorized to appeal the

trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress because t he motion was granted after jeopardy2 had attached. Id. at 404 ; see T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 44.01(a)(5) (West Supp. 2012 )

.

The Court of Crimin al Appeals held that “the trial court’s actions were functionally an acquittal

for purposes of double jeopardy.” 344 S.W.3d at 409. It is well settled that an acquittal, even if

erroneous, bars further prosecution and cannot be reviewed on appeal. Sanab ria v. United

States , 437 U.S. 54, 69 (1978); United States v. Sisson , 399 U.S. 267, 289 (1970). Consequently,

we must dismiss the State’s appeal

.
The appeal is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

February 14, 2013

Do not publish. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Orrie P. Stevens, Respondent.

[798 NYS2d 923]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1949, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
STATE of North Carolina v. Curley JACOBS and Bruce Lee McMillian.

No. 617PA05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

C. Scott Holmes, for Jacobs.

Lemuel W. Hinton, for McMillian.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 668 S.E.2d 346.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 21st day of November 2008 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 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of November 2008 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18195]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-395]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) to 
withdraw its January 14, 2003, application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear 
Station, Unit No. 1, located in Fairfield County, South Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical 
Specifications pertaining to emergency core cooling systems (ECCS); 
exclusion of safety injection pumps from the requirement to vent ECCS 
pumps.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on March 4, 
2003 (68 FR 10281). However, by letter dated June 22, 2005, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated January 14, 2003, and the licensee's 
letter dated June 22, 2005, which withdrew the application for license 
amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of September, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert E. Martin,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-18195 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Salary Council will meet at the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the fields of labor relations and pay policy. The Council makes recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for General Schedule employees under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code. The Council's recommendations cover the establishment of modification of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the process of comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the level of comparability payments that should be paid.

The Council will review the results of pay comparisons and formulate its recommendations to the President's Pay Agent on pay comparison methods, locality pay area boundaries for 2007. The Council anticipates it will complete its work for this year at this meeting and has not scheduled any additional meetings for 2005. The public may submit written materials about the locality pay program to the Council at the address shown below. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

October 3, 2005, at 10 a.m.

# LOCATION:

Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5303 (Pendleton Room), Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Donald J. Winstead, Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-4264; or e-mail at                         *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov.*

For The President's Pay Agent.

Linda M. Springer,

Director.

[FR Doc. 05-18133  Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-39-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 602 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 3, 2008.
    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 602) entitled ``An Act 
to develop the next generation of parental control technology'', do 
pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike section 2 and redesignate section 3 as section 2.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 602

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
# CE2004078EN.01014801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/148

---

(2004/C 78 E/0153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances

Subject:

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has expressed its concerns about delays in ratification of the Montreal Amendment, in particular as it pertains to the illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances. As of October 2002, the EIA reported that only 84 of the 183 parties to the Protocol had ratified the Amendment, committing signatories to the implementation of a licensing system in the context of trade in ozone-depleting substances. Could the Commission provide information on which of the EU Member States have ratified this amendment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

As of 28 July 2003, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom have ratified the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Community ratified the Montreal amendment on 17 November 2000. The Montreal Amendment, adopted in 1997 at the ninth meeting of the Parties, requires all Parties to implement an import and export licensing system. Implementing such systems is important in helping to prevent illegal trade in ozone depleting substances. The Commission, on behalf of the Community and its Member States, has implemented an import and export licensing system for controlled substances which operates under Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chakima Scott, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 512]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 16, 2004, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not seek to withdraw her plea of guilty before she was sentenced. Therefore, her claim that her plea was not intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly made is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662 [1988]; *People v Hull,*300 AD2d 411 [2002]; *People v Harris,*291 AD2d 458 [2002]; *People v Nieves,*289 AD2d 342 [2001]). Further, the defendant’s valid and unrestricted waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her claim that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733 [1998]; *People v Headley,*289 AD2d 341 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
DARBY v. CAMPBELL, et al.

No. 171P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Arthur Donald Darby, Jr., Fayetteville, for Darby, Arthur Donald (Jr.).

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of May 2015 by Plaintiff to Suppress against Jamie Christina Campbell, Jason Murphy, Attorney, Matthew Rothbeind, Attorney:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Annual Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neil Christiansen, Chief Executive Officer and 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 to the best of my knowledge:  (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.     Date: March 2, 2007 /s/ Neil Christiansen Neil Christiansen Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Solomon Lee-Warren GRAVES, Defendant.

No. COA15-316.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 33 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2081/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Government propaganda in Greece using resources from the third CSF

In recent days, we have watched in disbelief in Greece as the government has run a television propaganda campaign using the resources of the Community Support Framework. Supposedly, the publicity was to promote the operational programme ‘Education’ and the Community Support Framework in general. However, both the first and, even more so, the second advertisement resemble a publicity campaign for the governing party.

Typically, the advertisement ‘promoting’ the CSF in general, after describing at length the progress made in recent years in Greece as well as future achievements, finally flashes up for a split second the caption ‘CSF 2000-2008’.

Since this publicity campaign runs blatantly counter to the spirit of the structural fund regulation, whereby the Union's contribution to the development of poor countries and regions should be highlighted, will the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1905/03 by Mr Xarchakos (1).

----

(1)  See page 187.

----
STATE v. McSWAIN.

No. COA08-507.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Cleveland (06CRS54050).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
In the Matter of X.G.M., C.S.L.B., S.M.B., JR., Minor Children.

No. COA15-399.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
STATE v. James A.G. BUNCH, Jr.

No. 604P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie M. Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of October 2007 by Defendant to Certifiy Complete Entire Rercord:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000919603
<NAME> DIVA ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,388
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,483)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


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

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,256
<SECURITIES>                                     9,657
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                       221
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,953
<PP&E>                                          11,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,608
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,937
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,162
<SALES>                                        109,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,424
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,015
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,319
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAROLD R. WHITLEY

AND OCCUPANTS,

 Appellants,

v.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF

THE CITY OF DALLAS, TX,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00205-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 4

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # CC-14-02407)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination of whether it should 

be dismissed for want of prosecution. Finding that Harold Whitley, Appellant, has failed to make 

financial arrangements with the clerk of the trial court to pay for the clerk’s record, we dismiss 

the appeal for want of prosecution.

On June 6, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment and Whitley filed a pro se notice 

of appeal. The trial court clerk has notified the Court that Whitley has not made financial 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. The Clerk of the Court notified Whitley by letter 

regarding his failure to make financial arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and advised 

him that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he responded within ten 

days and showed grounds for continuing the appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 37.3. No reply has been 
- 2 -

received. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R.APP.P.

42.3(b).

November 5, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)