alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TUNSTALL v. Frank W. BALLANCE, et al.

No. 323A92-10.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Lumberton, for Tunstall, Charles Alonzo.

*69Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of August 2015 by Petitioner to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2875716-DEC-201009:25 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET FOUND ON PAGES 1
AND 2 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          27,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,454
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       219,478
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   333,724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,509
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (478)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 836
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,463
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.41
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008022EN.01000601.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Tomás Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-9/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 22/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Commission of the European Communities

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tomás Salazar Brier (represented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, abogados)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Canal, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities (T-83/03), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 28 July 2003 impliedly refusing the applicant's complaint of 24 February 2003 and its express refusal, on 24 March 2003, to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Salazar Brier to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Salazar Brier to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60 11.3.2006.

1

---
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00108 - CV CASEY G. DOBBS , A

PPELLANT V. SHAWN BALLEW AND BRENT WARDEN , APPELLEE S

On Appeal from the County Court Oldham County, Texas Trial Court No . 772 , Honorable David L. Gleason , Presiding



### June 15 , 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ . Appellant Casey G. Dobbs , a Texas inmate proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s Order of Dismissal without paying the required filing fee. 1 By letter of May 1 4 , 202 1 , we directed Dobbs to pay the filing fee or, in lieu thereof, to comply

1 Dobbs filed a notice of appeal within fifteen days after the notice of appeal deadline
. B y letter of May 17, 2021 , we notified Dobbs that a motion for an extension of time was implied and directed him to provide a reasonable explanation for his late notice . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 26.3, 10.5(b) ; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) ; Jones v. City of Houston , 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Because Dobbs has filed a response reasonably explaining the delay, an extension of time to file the late notice of a ppeal is granted.2

with c hapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by filing 1) an affidavit of indigence, 2) an affidavit relating to previous f ilings, and 3) a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017). We advised Dobbs that this appeal was subject to dismissal if he did not comply by May 24, 2021 . Dobbs has file d an affidavit of indigence but has not filed an affidavit describing his previous filings or a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement to date. The requirement to pay the filing fee or tender an affidavit of indigence, an affidavit of previou s filings, and a certified copy of an inmate trust account statement is mandatory, and the lack thereof is grounds for dismissal of an appeal or original proceeding. See In re Denson , No. 07 - 20 - 00191 - CV , 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 6966 , at * 1 (Tex. App.
— Amarillo Aug. 27, 2020 , orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Because Dobbs has failed to pay the filing fee or comply with all the requirements of c hapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code within the time provided for compliance , we dismiss his appeal . Per Curiam
# CE2004078EN.01000201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/2

---

(2004/C 78 E/0002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2369/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject:   Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens

Subject:

What is the estimated cost to business of compliance with Directive 1999/74/EC (1) laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens?

1

How many keepers are there in the EU who hold less than 350 hens?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

(1 October 2002)

The Commission has currently no available figures to estimate this cost. When making its proposal for the Directive in question laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, it took account of the economic estimations presented in its Communication of 11 March 1998 on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing (2). However, the provisions of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999, as finally adopted by the Council, include new technical elements which were not fully considered in the economic analysis of the Commission. For this reason article 10 of Directive 1999/74/EC includes the requirement for a report, to be presented by the Commission not later than 1 January 2005. An obligation for a further evaluation of the socio-economic implications of the various systems is also foreseen in the Directive. The cost to producers of implementation will play a key role in the socio-economic chapter of the report.

2

There are presently no recent statistics available to the Commission concerning the number of producers having less than 350 hens. However, in 1997 (3) there were 542 500 farms with less than 100 hens and 2 200 farms with between 100 and 499 hens, out of a total number of 549 250 laying hen farms accounted for in the whole EU.

3

---

(1)  OJ L 203, 3.8.1999, p. 53.

1

(2)  OJ C 123, 22.4.1998.

2

(3)  Eurostat: Results of the farm structure survey 1997.

3

---
Cheri Joyner STALLINGS, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Driver STALLINGS, Defendant.

No. COA15-327.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
exhibit10b-6.htm




Exhibit 10b-6


 


DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE GOALS

ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH 2011 FISCAL YEAR OF

LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLANS


 


     The Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors of ArvinMeritor, Inc. (“ArvinMeritor”), established a cash performance plan for the three-year performance period ending September 30, 2013 (the “2013 Plan”), and also established targets for the 2011 fiscal year of the cash performance plan for the three year performance period ending September 30, 2011 (the “2011 Plan”) and the cash performance plan for the three year performance period ending September 30, 2012 (the “2012 Plan”), under Section 13 of the 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan or, in the case of the 2011 Plan, the 2007 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Performance goals for each of the performance plans are based on three one-year targets, which are set at the end of the year for the following year. For the 2011 fiscal year of the 2011 Plan, the 2012 Plan and the 2013 Plan, these targets are based on a targeted Adjusted EBITDA margin that is set at the beginning of the applicable year. For the 2011 Plan, participants can earn from 0% to 200% of his target award, based on actual performance against specified levels. Payouts are also multiplied by the percentage change in the price of ArvinMeritor common stock over the three-year performance period, which may increase the payment finally awarded up to a maximum of 200% of the original amount or reduce it down to a minimum of 50% of the original amount. For the 2012 Plan and the 2013 Plan, participants can earn from 0% to 300% of his target award, based on actual performance against specified levels.


 


     At the end of the three year performance period, the total amount paid will be the sum of the percentages of target award earned for each year.
##### 



(KPMG LETTERHEAD) Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Goldcorp Inc. We consent to the use of our report, dated February 7, 2005 except as to Note 15 which is as of
February 14, 2005, included in this annual report and our Comments by Auditors for U.S. readers on
Canada-U.S. Reporting Differences, also dated February 7, 2005 except as to Note 15 which is as of
February 14, 2005 included in this annual report on Form 40-F.  (-s- KPMG LLP)
Toronto, Canada
February 7, 2005
(except as to Note 15 which is as of February 14, 2005)    KPMG
LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the
Canadianmember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
# C_2009044EN.01004201.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/42

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Componenta v Commission

(Case T-455/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Metallurgy sector - Acquisition of a shareholding held by an undertaking in a property company and repayment of a loan by that undertaking to the property company in consideration for an investment in that undertaking - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Private investor test - Valuation of the shares in a property company - Valuation of the real property assets of a company - Duty to state the reasons for the decision - Finding of the Court of its own motion)

(2009/C 44/71)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M. Savola and A. Järvinen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and M. Huttunen, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and J. Heliskoski, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 36)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta's costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta's costs;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00239-CV

David E. Shafer, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 29,913, HONORABLE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESIDING 

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

Appellant David E. Shafer has informed the Court that he no longer wishes to pursue

his appeal because the parties “have entered into an agreement of settlement disposing of all issues,”

and he has filed notice requesting the Court to dismiss the appeal. We construe appellant’s notice

as a motion to dismiss, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: August 28, 2008
I 

★

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 801 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, 

California, as the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

S 801 RFH1S 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse bordered by O Street, 

3 P Street, Tulare Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert 

5 E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate April 10, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7664** 

PEACE ELLUVASUN ALLAH CUSH

- EL, Aboriginal Republic of North America Larnad Aboriginal Minister , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. JUDGE MARY COVINGTON; PAT MCCRORY; ROY COOPER; ATTORNEY GENERAL IRVIN NATHAN , Defendants

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00756

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Peace Elluvasun Allah Cush

- El, Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Peace Elluvasun Allah Cush

- El appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and fi nd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Cush

- El v. Covington , No. 1:14

- cv - 00756

- TDS

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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

April 27, 2010 

0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140429 

RAND W. GOULD, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 140429 

 COA: 293432 

Ingham CC: 09-000200-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 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.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
   I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that: 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 9, 2005 By:  /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.    Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<CASH>                                             633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22418
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      20587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 47717
<PP&E>                                           17651
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   96619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15197
<BONDS>                                          23944
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                       56150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     96619
<SALES>                                         112203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                112203
<CGS>                                            76885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    76885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9250
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>