alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Anna Laura HUCKELBA.

No. 156A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2015.

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Huckelba, Anna Laura.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 17th of July 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 11th day of August 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           10192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    18260
<ALLOWANCES>                                       618
<INVENTORY>                                      13607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 42834
<PP&E>                                          106046
<DEPRECIATION>                                   50382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  145798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            26924
<BONDS>                                         216046
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      11216
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (108772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    145798
<SALES>                                         151058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           110110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   133789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3347)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
ELAM, et al. v. WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT., INC., et al.

No. 216P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kenneth T. Davies, Charlotte, for Elam, Amy Pharr, et al.

M. Aaron Lay, Charlotte, for William Douglas Managment, Inc.

Lori Gilmore, Raleigh, for Charlotte House Association of Unit Owners, Inc.

Erik M. Rosenwood, Charlotte, for Elam, Amy Pharr, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Plaintiffs for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          24,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     57,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,056
<PP&E>                                       3,063,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,338,383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,105,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,986
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,436,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,338,383
<SALES>                                        499,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               499,976
<CGS>                                          150,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                80,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              73,680
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (355,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (356,596)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (356,596)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)




</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. John Marvin OVERMAN, Jr.

No. 123P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

John Marvin Overman, Jr., Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Douglas A. Catalano, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas A. Catalano                        
|Douglas A. Catalano                            
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|March 31, 2005
(September 22, 2005)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William P. Ledger, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 759]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Halloran, J.), rendered January 22, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of attempted assault in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with vari*1181ous crimes arising from an altercation with his girlfriend in September 2001. Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment in exchange for the People’s promise to recommend an aggregate sentence of one year in jail. County Court made no promises or commitments with regard to sentencing and so advised defendant prior to accepting his plea. Subsequently, the court began sentencing defendant to a prison term of 1 to 3 years when defendant fell ill and sentencing was postponed. At the commencement of the next sentencing proceeding, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that the sentence to be imposed was not that agreed upon. County Court denied the request and proceeded to sentence defendant to an aggregate prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.

The record clearly reflects that defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently and that he knew and understood that there were no promises being made by County Court concerning sentencing *(see People v Lopez, 8*AD3d 819, 820 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 708 [2004]; *People v McCann,*303 AD2d 780, 781 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 584 [2003]). County Court conducted a thorough colloquy, meticulously advising defendant of the consequences of pleading guilty and the rights he was relinquishing. Additionally, both prior to commencing the plea colloquy and at the conclusion thereof, County Court ensured that defendant knew and understood that it was making no commitment with regard to sentence and apprised him of the maximum possible sentence. Defendant acknowledged that he understood the terms of the agreement, including that there was no promise or commitment being made by the court concerning sentencing, that he was aware of the rights he was giving up by entering a plea of guilty and that he was doing so of his own volition. Defendant also engaged in a detailed factual allocution of the crimes to which he was pleading guilty. In light of the foregoing, defendant’s request to withdraw his guilty plea merely because he was dissatisfied with the sentence imposed was without merit and County Court properly denied the request *(see People v Lopez, supra*at 820; *People v McCann, supra*at 781; *People v De Fabritis,*296 AD2d 664, 664-665 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 557 [2002]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors






         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
         Statements on

           (i)    Form S-3 No. 333-91797
           (ii)   Form S-8 No. 333-81061
           (iii)  Form S-8 No. 333-71619
           (iv)   Form S-8 No. 333-71621
           (v)    Form S-3 No. 333-75839

         of our report dated March 16, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
         financial statements of U.S. Vision, Inc., included in the Annual
         Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2001.






                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 27, 2001
# CE2004078EN.01009001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/90

---

(2004/C 78 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2196/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Civil protection

Subject:

What civil protection resources and capabilities are available to the European Commission and how is the Commission organised to handle these matters? What is the Commission's budget for civil protection activities for each year in the period 2000-2005? What steps are taken to ensure that the Commission does not duplicate the activities of the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre at NATO HQ? In the event of a crisis, what mechanisms exist to ensure that the Commission's call for and mobilisation of capabilities, and execution of civil protection procedures, are fully coordinated with those of NATO?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

(31 July 2003)

Following the Council Decision 2001/792/EC, Euratom of 23 October 2001 establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions (1), the Commission has established a Response Centre which is accessible and able to react immediately 24 hours a day. The Centre can be activated in case of a natural or man-made emergency, occurring inside or outside the Union. If it receives a request for assistance, it takes up immediate contact with the 24-hour contact points of the countries participating in the mechanism (Member States, European Economic Area (EEA) and Accession Countries). Then, the Centre puts together the means available, offered on a voluntary basis by the national competent authorities and facilitates their deployment.

1

The budget for Civil Protection activities for the year 2003 is EUR 6,5 million. This budget covers, on a co-financing basis, different types of activities: training, exercises and exchange of experts for civil protection personnel, workshops and projects aiming at better information of the public, awareness raising projects.

Out of this budget EUR 2 million have been earmarked by the Parliament for floods and earthquake forecasting projects.

The Commission has developed regular contacts with all relevant bodies and international organisations concerned with civil protection, including NATO's Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). It will be up to those Member States who have offered civil protection capabilities to one or more co-ordination centres to decide how best their resources should be deployed in any given emergency situation. Council Decision 1999/847/CE establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (2) is also worth mentioning in this context.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 15.11.2001.

1

(2)  OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.

2

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2126/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Compulsory provision of basic banking services for all EU citizens

In Belgium, the Basic Banking Services Act will enter into force in September 2003. From then onwards, everyone who so wishes must be able to open an account at the bank of his choice for a maximum of EUR 12 per annum. In return, the bank must provide a number of minimum services. The Belgian legislature considered this measure to be necessary partly because banks were refusing to accept many less affluent people as customers, and such people were consequently unable to engage in payment transactions which are regarded as a normal part of modern life.

Is the Commission aware of this Belgian initiative, and, in the light of it, is the Commission considering introducing a similar socially desirable initiative at European level so that all citizens of the Union can expect minimum services from banks and thus continue to participate in modern payment transactions? If so, what steps will it take? If not, why will it not introduce such a measure?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Belgian law, which introduces minimum banking services at a national level.

While the question of access to minimal banking services is an important question, at present the Commission does not envisage to propose a legal instrument that would introduce a similar obligation in the financial services sector throughout the Union. The issue was discussed at a workshop organised by the Commission back in February 2001. The idea of access to basic banking services was not included either in the Commission's Green Book on services of general interest published in May 2003 (1).

According to the information available, the national economic and social framework and, consequently, the national approaches on minimum services from banks differ from one Member State to another. In other words, this is a matter best left to national regulation.

In the absence of harmonisation, Member States are free to adopt or maintain laws such as the Belgian one provided the national measures comply with the general principles of the EC Treaty and fulfil the requirements of proportionality and non-discrimination.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 270 final.

----
# CE2004088EN.01012201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/122 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/122

---

(2004/C 88 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2934/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Cuba — Spanish Cultural Centre

Subject:

According to the media, the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana has been taken over by the State, 90 days after the country's authorities denounced a bilateral agreement concerning this institution.

This has been seen as a reprisal on the part of the Cuban authorities, in response to the measures against Cuba adopted by the European Union on 5 June 2003.

The Commission:

| — | what information does it have as to the facts; |
| --- | --- |

—

what information does it have as to the facts;

| — | what steps has it delegation taken vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities, to prevent the nationalisation of the Spanish Cultural Centre; |
| --- | --- |

—

what steps has it delegation taken vis-à-vis the Cuban authorities, to prevent the nationalisation of the Spanish Cultural Centre;

| — | how does it view the positions recently adopted by the Cuban authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

how does it view the positions recently adopted by the Cuban authorities;

| — | what measures does it intend to take to reverse the situation of the Spanish Cultural Centre, and to prevent similar events in future? |
| --- | --- |

—

what measures does it intend to take to reverse the situation of the Spanish Cultural Centre, and to prevent similar events in future?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

Spain informed the other Member States and the Commission of the decision of the Cuban authorities to denounce the bilateral agreement concerning the Spanish Cultural Centre in Havana. This decision was announced by a public statement of the Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs on 11 June 2003, following the Union declaration on Cuba of 5 June 2003.

It is for Spain to consider steps it wishes to take, including the possibility of initiating legal action over this unilateral breach of the agreement.

The conclusions adopted on Cuba by the European Council in Thessaloniki, on 19 and 20 June 2003, recalled the measures announced by the Union on 5 June 2003 and considered the behaviour of the Cuban authorities towards the Union and its Member States unacceptable. This behaviour was also deplored and totally rejected in the Council conclusions on the re-evaluation of the Common Position on Cuba in July 2003.

In the face of this kind of event, the Member States and the Commission have agreed to maintain strong cohesion in the implementation of all the measures decided and made public on 5 June 2003.

---
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.11 
 Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation 
 Officers of our managing general partner
who also serve as directors will not receive additional compensation. Each director receives cash compensation of $25,000 per year for attending our regularly scheduled quarterly board meetings. Each non-employee director receives $1,000 for each
special meeting of the board of directors attended and $1,000 per compensation, audit or conflicts committee meeting attended. The chairman of the audit committee receives an annual fee of $5,000 per year and the chairman of the compensation
committee receives an annual fee of $1,000 per year. Furthermore, each non-employee director receives an annual grant of restricted units under the long-term incentive plan equal to $25,000 in value. These units vest ratably over three years
beginning one year from the grant date. Each non-employee director is reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attending meetings of the board of directors or committees. Each director is fully indemnified for actions associated with
being a director to the extent permitted under Delaware law. 
 On November 12, 2010, the compensation committee approved a new
compensation package for our non-employee directors. Beginning on January 1, 2011, each non-employee director will receive cash compensation of $40,000 per year for attending our regular board and distribution meetings. Each non-employee
director will receive $1,000 for each special meeting or committee meeting attended. The chairman of the audit committee will receive an annual fee of $10,000 per year and the chairman of the compensation committee will receive an annual fee of
$2,000 per year. Furthermore, each non-employee director will receive an annual grant of restricted units under the long-term incentive plan equal to $50,000 in value. These units will vest ratably over three years beginning one year from the grant
date.
POWELL v. BOURLON & DAVIS.

No. 441P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Arnold Powell, Bunn, for Powell, Arnold.

John M. Bourlon, for Bourdon & Davis.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of December 2015 by Petitioner for Request for an Order to Compel:

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