alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Montgomery, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 784]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered November 26, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

In accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree and was sentenced to a prison term of 10 years, with five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive.

We disagree. Defendant’s sentence is within the statutory parameters and, thus, will not be disturbed absent a showing that County Court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a reduction in the interest of justice *(see People v Bozydaj,*14 AD3d 791, 792 [2005], *lv denied*
      *11494 NY3d 884 [2005]; *People v Dedmon,*10 AD3d 738, 739 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 756 [2004]), neither of which is present here. Although we note defendant’s young age, the agreed-upon sentence imposed was less than the statutory maximum *(see*Penal Law § 70.02 [3]), and the fact that his codefendants may have received lesser sentences for the same crime “does not warrant disturbing County Court’s exercise of discretion in this regard” *(People v Irizarry,*289 AD2d 875, 876 [2001]; *see People v McLean,*307 AD2d 586, 588 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 643 [2003] ).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
RATHORE v. BERMAN MTG. CORP.

No. 571P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Edward L. Embree, III, Michael J. Byrne, Morrisville, for Berman Mtg.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of December 2007 by Plaintiff for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
            
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,330,580
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  57,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,388,450
<PP&E>                                         11,947,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,212,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,350,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          608,600
<BONDS>                                        11,076,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,661,450
<COMMON>                                       815,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     (811,050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,350,550
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,742,300
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               784,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,074,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (116,960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (116,960)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (116,960)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)
        




</TABLE>
Anthony M. FUSCO and Pilar M. Fusco, Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., and Robert Harrison Allen, Jr., Defendants.

No. COA15-202.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6381

CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN J. LAMANNA, in his individual capacity; R. MCLAFFERTY, in

his individual capacity; BRIAN FINNERTY; BRIAN GILMORE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, in its official capacity; HARLEY G.

LAPPIN, in his individual capacity,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (2:06-cv-01785-GRA)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence T. Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Clarence T. Fox, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fox v.

LaManna, No. 2:06-cv-01785-GRA (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2008). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# CE2004070EN.01022301.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/223 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/223

---

(2004/C 70 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3119/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject:   Breach of Directive 1999/70/EC

Subject:

According to complaints brought by the association of contract workers at the Telecommunications Organisation of Greece (OTE), the organisation's management has announced 800 job vacancies in the telephone service sector, setting an age limit of 30 and subsequently 26 years, thereby excluding the contract workers currently employed in this sector who have been covering the OTE's on-going needs for many years, and who could have been made permanent staff.

Can the Commission say whether this practice contravenes Directive 1999/70/EC (1) and if so, what steps it will take to ensure that Community law is complied with?

1

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

(20 November 2003)

According to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (2) on fixed-term work, employers shall inform fixed-term workers about vacancies, which become available to ensure that they have the same opportunity to secure permanent positions as other workers. Such information can be provided by way of a general announcement at a suitable place in the undertaking or establishment (clause 6.1). The Directive also lays down a principle of non-discrimination as regards employment conditions and states that period-of-service qualifications relating to particular conditions of employment shall be the same for fixed-term workers as for permanent workers except where different length-of service qualifications are justified on objective grounds (clause 4.1 and 4). The Directive does not state, however, that fixed-term workers should have priority to job vacancies.

2

The fact that fixed-term workers did not have priority to these posts is therefore not a breach of the Directive. The rules on information about vacancies and period-of-service qualifications have been transposed in Greece. Whether the job announcement as such was made according to these rules is therefore something the competent Greek authorities should assess.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

1

(2)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP).

2

---
# CE2004070EN.01023702.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/237 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/237

---

(2004/C 70 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3215/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Clinical Trials Directive

Subject:

| 1. | With regard to the transposition of Directive 2001/20/EC (1), the provisions of which must be in place by 1 May 2004, will the Commission confirm whether certain Member States are seeking exemptions for non-commercial clinical trials? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the transposition of Directive 2001/20/EC (1), the provisions of which must be in place by 1 May 2004, will the Commission confirm whether certain Member States are seeking exemptions for non-commercial clinical trials?

1

| 2. | Will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government to seek such an exemption? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the Commission confirm whether it has been contacted by the UK Government to seek such an exemption?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-3209/03 and E-3215/03

given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

(12 November 2003)

The concerns regarding potential hurdles to research have been taken on board and were discussed during a Pharmaceutical Committee meeting held on 15 May 2003 between Member States and the Commission.

The Commission and Member States discussed the responsibilities of the Member States to take into consideration the recommendation given in Directive 2001/20/EC (2), recital 14, for non-commercial trial.

2

It is clearly not the intention of the Commission that the implementation of the clinical trials directive in national law should have a prohibitive effect on prospects for European research.

On the contrary, it is the intention of the Commission to strengthen a European clinical trials environment in the interests of the European Research Area and the European citizens as stated in the G 10 recommendations.

The Commission understands the researchers' concerns but has at this stage no intention to propose a modification to Directive 2001/20/EC.

The Commission is currently working together with the Member States in the preparation of the implementing guidelines of this Directive. We are therefore confident that most of these concerns will be addressed during this preparation.

---

(1)  OJ L 121, 1.5.2001, p. 34.

1

(2)  Directive 2001/20/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, OJ L 121, 1.5.2001.

2

---
STATE v. Judy HARDISON.

No. 387P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hardison, Judy.

Torrey Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of November 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01017801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/178 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/178

---

(2004/C 78 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Complaints or infringements regarding the implementation of Greece of Community environmental legislation

Subject:

In reply to my question E-1829/03 (1), Commissioner Wallström obligingly indicated that it was possible to obtain general statistics concerning complaints and infringements regarding transposition into Greek law and implementation of Community environmental legislation in Greece. Would the Commission be kind enough to forward to me the relevant statistics and the matters to which they relate from 1994 to the present date?

1

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

(10 November 2003)

For technical reasons, the Commission can only provide the Honourable Member with statistics relating to 1995 onwards. Thus, between 1995 and 2002 the Commission registered and investigated 257 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece. These dossiers were opened on the basis of complaints, petitions and parliamentary questions, and on the Commission's own initiative. At 24 September 2003, 98 dossiers relating to alleged or established infringements of Community environment law in Greece were still open.

The infringement procedure laid down by Article 226 of the Treaty was initiated for 85 of the 257 dossiers. Of these 85 dossiers, 19 concerned air pollution, 18 related to Community waste management legislation, 13 dealt with nature protection, 11 related to chemicals, ten concerned water protection, five related to Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3), three concerned genetically modified organisms and six concerned other areas of Community environment law.

2

3

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 175.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

2

(3)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

3

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18354]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5165]


Notice of Meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law

    A meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Law will take 
place on Thursday, September 29, 2005, from 10 a.m. to approximately 4 
p.m., as necessary, in Room 1207 of the United States Department of 
State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be chaired 
by the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, John B. Bellinger, 
III, and will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting 
room. The meeting will discuss various issues relating to current 
international legal topics, including Presidential determinations to 
comply with International Court of Justice decisions: Avena and 
domestic litigation; the recent session of the International Law 
Commission; recent developments on prisoners and detainees, and recent 
developments on treaties.
    Entry to the building is controlled and will be facilitated by 
advance arrangements. Members of the public desiring access to the 
session should, by Tuesday, September 27, 2005, notify the Office of 
the Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs (telephone: 202-
647-2767) of their name, date of birth; citizenship (country); ID 
number., i.e., U.S. government ID (agency), U.S. military ID (branch), 
passport (country), or drivers license (state); professional 
affiliation, address and telephone number in order to arrange 
admittance. This includes admittance for government employees as well 
as others. All attendees must use the ``C'' Street entrance. One of the 
following valid IDs will be required for admittance: any U.S. driver's 
license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. Government agency ID. Because 
an escort is required at all times, attendees should expect to remain 
in the meeting for the entire morning or afternoon session.

    Dated: September 9, 2005.
Judith L. Osborn,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of United Nations Affairs, Office of the Legal 
Adviser, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-18354 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4977

_____________________________

ROBERT ELLIS BARNHILL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

March 27, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Edward I. SUAREZ, Plaintiff, v. LCD PROPERTIES, LLC, Linda H. Annis, and Matthew York, Defendants.

No. COA15-129.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 3, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Bilvia SANDOVAL, Employee v. PILLOWTEX CORP., Employer Crawford & Company, Carrier.

No. 610P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Kathleen Sumner, Greensboro, for Sandoval.

Joel K. Turner, Charlotte, for Pillowtex Corp., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of December 2007 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
**CERTIFICATION      **

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(SUBSECTIONS      (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, **

**CHAPTER      63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)**

| (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 results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |
|------------------------------------------|
| /s/                Larry D. Brady        |
| Larry                D. Brady            |
| *Chief                Executive Officer* |
| March                20, 2007            |
|                                     |
|                                     |
STATE of North Carolina, v. Landon Marchel RADER, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-192.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# CE2004088EN.01037501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/375 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/375

---

(2004/C 88 E/0380)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1806/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Settlement of payments to EU Member States under the second CSF.

Subject:

Given that procedures have commenced for settlement of payments under the second CSF, can the Commission provide the following information:

| — | what amounts were finally requested by each Member State? |
| --- | --- |

—

what amounts were finally requested by each Member State?

| — | what appropriations were not taken up by each of the Member States? |
| --- | --- |

—

what appropriations were not taken up by each of the Member States?

| — | what percentage of total earmarked appropriations were represented by the amounts not taken up by Member States in each case? |
| --- | --- |

—

what percentage of total earmarked appropriations were represented by the amounts not taken up by Member States in each case?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

(23 June 2003)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Oral Question No H-0310/03 by Mr Mastorakis during Question Time at Parliament's June 2003 part-session (1).

1

---

(1)  Written reply given on 3.6.2003.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01014501.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/145

---

(2004/C 70 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2834/03

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Subject:   Air transport agreements with the USA

Subject:

On 1 October 2003, the European Union will open negotiations in Washington with the USA to establish a new global legal framework for transatlantic air links.

In view of the ambitious nature of this objective and the complexity of the issues involved, by when does the Commission expect to be able to conclude an agreement?

In the light of the negotiating mandate drawn up by the Council in June 2003, can the Commission reasonably expect to conclude an agreement within the next few months at the risk of not making genuine progress on all the issues to be discussed?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

(14 October 2003)

In accordance with the negotiating mandate granted to the Commission by the Council in June 2003, the purpose of the negotiations that began on 1 October 2003 in Washington is to conclude a global agreement with the United States with a view to redefining the legal framework for transatlantic air links. The aim is to thoroughly reform the legal framework concerned. It is a reflection of the importance of the desired reform that certain adjustments and/or changes will have to be made to laws and regulations applicable to the United States, or even to certain texts concerning Community law.

Therefore, given the important political events on the horizon both within the Community and in the United States in 2004, it does not seem realistic at this stage to expect an agreement before the year 2005.

The Commission, however, considers that in the meantime adjustments should be made to the existing bilateral agreements, which are necessary to bring them into line with Community law. Proposals of this kind have been put to the American authorities. These proposals will be discussed in a separate framework from that concerning the abovementioned global agreement.

---