alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LUCAS & BEACH, INC., Plaintiff, v. AGRI-EAST GROUP, INC., Defendant.

No. COA15-463.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
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

January 29, 2010 

p0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139937 & (98) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139937 

 COA: 272369 

Wayne CC: 06-004272-01 

ROOSEVELT THEODORE WATTS, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2009 

judgment 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. The motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED.
----

(2004/C 33 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1959/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   On-the-spot checks at EAGGF Guarantee Section national paying agencies

In the light of the assessment contained in the 2001 Annual Report of the Court of Auditors regarding national paying agencies for the EAGGF Guarantee Section, has the Commission made plans to increase its on-the-spot checks in 2003?

Could it specify the total number of external inspection missions that it intends to carry out in 2003 where the EAGGF Guarantee Section is concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2003)

The Commission considers the work of the certification bodies to form an adequate basis for clearing the accounts of the paying agencies. The Commission closely monitors compliance with the clearance criteria to ensure that all improvement measures are implemented by the paying agencies.

In 2002 the Commission carried out 164 external inspection missions on the EAGGF Guarantee Section including 27 on-the-spot checks at the national paying agencies (certification for 2001, accreditation, computer audit, etc.).

For 2003 the Commission has scheduled 185 external inspection missions on the EAGGF Guarantee Section (i.e. a 12,81 % increase over 2002), including 34 on-the-spot checks at the national paying agencies (certification for 2002, certification and pre-accreditation of the accession countries' paying agencies, delegated bodies, etc.).

By way of information, for the 2002 financial year, in Decision 2003/313/EC of 8 May 2003 (1) the Commission disjoined the accounts of 17 paying agencies out of a total of 91 (i.e. 18,68 % ), broken down as follows:

----

(1)OJ L 114, 8.5.2003.

----
STATE v. Reginal FULLARD.

No. 455P14-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Reginald Fullard, Lumberton, for Fullard, Reginald.

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

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of November 2015 by Defendant for Writ of Mandamus:

> *797"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
**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 connectionwith the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce W. Duncan,Chief Executive Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 

 
| /s/                      | Bruce W. Duncan |   |
|--------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Bruce W.  Duncan         |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| of Equity  Residential   |
| August 6,  2004          |

 

----
# C_2008051EN.01001601.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium)) — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL v État Belge

(Case C-250/06) (1)

1

(Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - National legislation requiring cable operators to broadcast programmes transmitted by certain private broadcasters (‘must carry’) - Restriction - Overriding reason relating to the general interest - Maintenance of pluralism in a bilingual region)

(2008/C 51/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SPRL, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL

Applicants:

Defendant: État Belge

Defendant:

Intervening parties: BeTV SA, Tvi SA, Télé Bruxelles ASBL, Belgian Business Television SA, Media ad Infinitum SA, TV5-Monde,

Intervening parties:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 86 EC — Definition of ‘special right’ — Obligation imposed on cabled distribution companies to distribute television programmes broadcast by certain broadcasting organisations established mainly in national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which requires, by virtue of a must-carry obligation, cable operators providing services on the relevant territory of that State to broadcast television programmes transmitted by private broadcasters falling under the public powers of that State and designated by the latter, where such legislation:

| — | pursues an aim in the general interest, such as the retention, pursuant to the cultural policy of that Member State, of the pluralist character of the television programmes available in that territory, and |
| --- | --- |

—

pursues an aim in the general interest, such as the retention, pursuant to the cultural policy of that Member State, of the pluralist character of the television programmes available in that territory, and

| — | is not disproportionate in relation to that objective, which means that the manner in which it is applied must be subject to a transparent procedure based on objective non-discriminatory criteria known in advance. |
| --- | --- |

—

is not disproportionate in relation to that objective, which means that the manner in which it is applied must be subject to a transparent procedure based on objective non-discriminatory criteria known in advance.

It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40731

Conference Calendar

 

LARRY NICHOLS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TRACI KENNER; GREGG MARCHESSAULT, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

Tyler Division; JAMES A. HERSLEY, Special Agent, FBI,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:03-CV-132

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Nichols appeals the denial of his mandamus petition,

in which he sought an order compelling U.S. Attorney Matthew

Orwig to investigate the alleged misconduct of the defendants

relative to the prosecution of Alan Petty. He argues that his

due process rights were violated when the magistrate judge issued

his recommendation prior to the expiration of the period afforded

Nichols to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss and,
No. 03-40731

-2-

additionally, that the district court purposely misconstrued the

relief he sought in order to favor the defendants. 

Nichols is correct that the magistrate judge issued his

recommendation prior to the expiration of the 15-day period

afforded Nichols to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss, see

E.D. TEX. R. CV-7(e); nevertheless, the district court afforded

Nichols’s opposition de novo review before judgment was rendered,

and we therefore hold his due process argument meritless. Cf.

McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled on

other grounds, Kansa Reinsurance Co. v. Congressional Mortgage

Corp. of Texas, 20 F.3d 1362, 1373-74 (5th Cir. 1994). 

We further hold that the district court’s liberal

construction of Nichols’s pro se petition as requesting an order

compelling the defendants to undertake criminal prosecutions was

reasonable. See, e.g., Castro Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349,

354 n.2 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, Nichols has failed to brief

the issue that served as the basis for the district court’s

decision, i.e., that he lacked standing to bring the instant

mandamus petition. He has therefore waived its review and,

consequently, has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

This appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

dismissed as frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3606 

To extend the special immigrant nonminister religious worker program and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, 

read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To extend the special immigrant nonminister religious worker 

program and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘Special Immigrant Non5 minister Religious Worker Program Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT NONMINISTER RELIGIOUS 

7 WORKER PROGRAM. 

8 (a) EXTENSION.—Subclause (II) and subclause (III) 

9 of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Na10 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) are amended 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3606 CPS

1 by striking ‘‘October 1, 2008,’’ both places such term ap2 pears and inserting ‘‘March 6, 2009,’’. 

3 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the 

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Home5 land Security shall— 

6 (1) issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce 

7 fraud related to the granting of special immigrant 

8 status for special immigrants described in subclause 

9 (II) or (III) of section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Im10 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

11 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)); and 

12 (2) submit a certification to Congress and pub13 lish notice in the Federal Register that such regula14 tions have been issued and are in effect. 

15 (c) REPORT.—Not later than March 6, 2009, the In16 spector General of the Department of Homeland Security 

17 shall submit to Congress a report on the effectiveness of 

18 the regulations required by subsection (b)(1). 

19 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that the Sec21 retary of Homeland Security submits the certification de22 scribed in subsection (b)(2) stating that the final regula23 tions required by subsection (b)(1) have been issued and 

24 are in effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                    OCA, INC.
     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), of OCA, Inc. (the "Company"), I, Bartholomew F.
Palmisano, Sr., Chief Executive 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:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: December 23, 2004                  /s/ Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr.
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr.
                                         Chairman of the Board, President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer
TRITON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RIVERWALK IN HIGHLANDS, LLC.

No. COA08-583.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Macon (08CVS21).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
STATE v. David Matthew LOWE.

No. 278PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill**,** for Lowe, David Matthew.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of May 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 20th day of May 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                         STATE OF INCORPORATION       DOING BUSINESS AS
------------------                         ----------------------       -----------------

<S>                                                 <C>                      <C>
Blythe-Province, Inc.                                TN                      Same.

Brim Equipment Services, Inc.                        OR                      Same.

Brim Fifth Avenue, Inc.                              OR                      Same.

Brim Healthcare, Inc.                                OR                      Same.

Brim Hospitals, Inc.                                 OR                      General Hospital
                                                                             Palo Verde Hospital
                                                                             Colorado Plains Medical Center
                                                                             Ojai Valley Community Hospital

Brim Outpatient Services, Inc.                       OR                      Same.

Brim Pavilion, Inc.                                  OR                      Same.

Brim Services Group, Inc.                            OR                      Same.

Care Health Company, Inc.                            WA                      Same.

Community Health Partners, L.L.C.                    MO                      Same.

Harris Street Surgery Partners                       OR                      Same.
Limited Partnership

InProNet, Inc.                                       OR                      Same.

Integrated Health Management, LLC                    CA                      Same.

Mexia Principal Healthcare Limited                   TX                      Parkview Regional Hospital
Partnership

Mexia-Principal, Inc.                                TX                      Same.

Northeastern New Mexico Imaging                      NM                      Same.
Partnership

Palestine-Principal G.P., Inc.                       TX                      Same.

Palestine-Principal Healthcare                       TX                      Memorial Mother Frances Hospital
Limited Partnership

Palestine-Principal, Inc.                            TN                      Same.

PHC of Delaware, Inc.                                DE                      Same.

PHC-Eunice, Inc.                                     LA                      Same.

PHC-Lake Havasu, Inc.                                AZ                      Same.

Principal Hospital Company of                        NV                      Same.
Nevada, Inc.

Principal Knox Company                               DE                      Starke Memorial Hospital

Principal-Needles, Inc.                              TN                      Colorado River Medical Center

The Woodrum Group, Inc.                              OR                      Same.
</TABLE>
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00143

- CV

JACKIE LYN TAYLOR, L .V.N. FORMER EMPLOY EE OF BROOKDALE SENI OR LIVING PLANO, Appellant

V.

SHERRIE SAMARI, INDI VIDUALLY AND AS HEIR TO AND REPRESENTATI VE OF

THE ESTATE OF FRANK ALLEN PONATH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199

- 02029

- 2018



### O RDER

B e fo re the Court is court r eporter Sheri J. Vecera’s February 12, 2019 request for

extension of time to file the record

. We GRANT the extension request and ORDER the record

be filed no later than February 19, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
STATE of North Carolina v. Paul Gregory PERRY.

No. 351P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

W. Michael Spivey, Rocky Mount, for Perry, Paul Gregory.

Elizabeth J. Weese, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 19th of October 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of October 2015 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 28th of January 2016."
----

(2004/C 65 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2288/03

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Treatment of third-country nationals in prisons in the EU Member States

The Turkish daily newspaper Hürriyet carried an article drawing attention to restrictions on the rights of third-country nationals held in prisons in the EU.

Those restrictions concerned the right to visits, to make complaints and to day release.

To what extent is the Commission aware of these problems? What areas are affected by these restrictions? What is the legal basis for their imposition? Are these restrictions being dealt with as part of the process of approximating home affairs policies, or will they continue to differ from Member State to Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Commission does not have a copy of the article to which the Honourable Member refers and so it is unable to reply in detail to the questions, which are based on information contained in that article. Matters relating to the way in which penalties (including those affecting conditional release) are enforced will be the subject of a Green Paper (on the approximation, recognition and enforcement of criminal penalties in the Union) that will probably be adopted by the Commission in October. As things stand, the right of appeal of detainees is not governed by any specific rules of Union legislation and is essentially covered by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe (Article 6), and by the Member States' national law.

----
The RESIDENCES AT BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. v. POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC and Mountain Mortgage, Inc.

No. 390P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

David R. Payne, Asheville, for Power Development, LLC, et al.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville, for the Residences at Biltmore Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.

Erin F. Dunnuck, for the Residences at Biltmore Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 4th of December 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:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
**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/A 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
      25, 2008