alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. James Aubrey FEATHERSTONE.

No. COA14-1407.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 16, 2015.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.

W. Michael Spivey for defendant-appellant.

BRYANT, Judge.

Pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-208.40B(c), a defendant who commits the aggravated offense of second-degree rape is required to submit to lifetime satellite-based monitoring.

On 25 April 2007, defendant James Aubrey Featherstone pled guilty to two counts each of second-degree rape and second-degree sexual offense. On 27 May 2014, defendant appeared in court for continuation of a hearing to determine whether he should be enrolled in satellite-based monitoring ("SBM") and, if so, for what period of time. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that defendant had been convicted of an aggravated offense, namely, second-degree rape. The trial court ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for a period of thirty years. Defendant appeals.

_________________________

In his sole issue on appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by not requiring him to enroll in lifetime SBM. Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court was required to order lifetime SBM if it found that defendant had been convicted of an aggravated offense. We agree.

Second-degree rape is a reportable aggravated offense. *State v.. McCravey,*203 N.C.App. 627, 641, 692 S.E.2d 409, 420 (2010). If the trial court finds that the offender committed an aggravated offense, it "shall order the offender to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-208.40B(c) (2013). Upon satisfaction of certain conditions, an offender who is required to submit to lifetime SBM "may file a request for termination of monitoring requirement" with the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission ("the Commission"). *Id.*§ 14-208.43(a). The statute governing termination of monitoring provides that "[t]he Commission shall not consider any request to terminate a monitoring requirement except as provided by this section." *Id.*§ 14-208.43(e). There is no statutory provision to permit an offender to seek termination of monitoring when SBM is ordered for a finite term of years. *State v. Morrow,*200 N.C.App. 123, 133, 683 S.E .2d 754, 762 (2009).

In the instant case, the trial court found that defendant had committed the offense of second-degree rape and ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for a period of thirty years. The State concedes that the trial court erred in not ordering defendant to be enrolled in lifetime SBM, and agrees with defendant that the order should be vacated and the matter remanded for a new hearing at which the trial court can order enrollment for life as required by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14-208.40B(c).

Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand for a new hearing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Judges DIETZ and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

**Opinion**

Appeal by defendant from order entered 27 May 2014 by Judge G. Wayne Abernathy in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 June 2015.
----

(2004/C 65 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3041/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Serious defects in Greek ambulances

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly brought up in the Greek parliament the question of the provision of ambulances belonging to the National Emergency Aid Centre (EKAB), the specifications which should be met, transparency in the choice of the vehicle makes bought and the equipment that they should have in order to be able to carry out their difficult tasks.

Workers at EKAB have on many occasions pointed out that many of these ambulances lack the requisite portable artificial respiration equipment (which is designed to give the first supplies of oxygen to an injured person), as well as another acutely essential piece of equipment, the defibrillator, which ought to be in every ambulance to administer repeated electrical shocks to a patient who has had a heart attack.

The ‘New Democracy’ party has repeatedly pointed out (through the social issues coordinator responsible for this area, our former European Parliament colleague Nikitas Kaklamanis) the problem of lack of transparency in the choice of ambulances makes bought from time to time (thanks to the second and third Community support frameworks).

Could the Commission set out the exact total amounts which have been made available by the EU from 1994 until the present, and indicate precisely which operational programmes (either via the CSF or Community initiatives) apply to the provision of ambulances and other emergency medical care transport units? Has the Commission been informed of the above-mentioned defects in ambulance equipment? What is the Commission's position with regard to the allegations by workers at EKAB that for a city such as Athens (with five million residents) there are only 72 ambulances, amounting to one ambulance for every 70 000 city residents; hence the recent incident (on 30 September 2003) of the injured motorcyclist in Athens who waited for two hours in a heap on the road for an ambulance to arrive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18067]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States; Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will 
hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation 
but not participation.

DATES: March 9-10, 2006.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: University of North Carolina School of Law, Ridge Road, Van 
Hecke-Wettach Hall, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 05-18067 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Wesley WEATHERS.

No. COA15-112.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
Melchor Zapata DOMINGUEZ, Employee v. FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ MASONRY, INC., Employer, Builders Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 303P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Francisco Bricio, for Dominguez, Melchor Zapata.

Jeffrey A. Misenheimer, J. William Crone, IV, Raleigh, for Francisco Dominguez Masonry, Inc., et al.

*562*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of August 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         839,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,490,808
<PP&E>                                      17,559,602
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,061,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,650,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,963,319
<BONDS>                                        850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,676,336
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,951,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,659,328
<SALES>                                     14,092,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,092,914
<CGS>                                        6,754,124
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,673,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,518,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,081,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,083,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,083,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7526
JACK HINCHMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRIME CARE MEDICAL, Central Regional Jail, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-93-1) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jack Hinchman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jack Hinchman appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reimbursement. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hinchman v. Prime Care Medical , No. CA-01-93-1 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2001). 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
Exhibit 32


BIOCORAL, INC.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Biocoral, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nasser Nassiri, the President, CEO, Chairman of the Board of the Company and the Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Date: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ Nasser NassiriNasser NassiriPresident, CEO, Chairman of the Board and Principal Accounting Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended            Six Months Ended
                                                         September 30,                 September 30,
                                                     ---------------------         ---------------------
                                                      1996           1995           1996          1995
                                                     ---------------------         ------        -------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>           <C>             <C>  
Weighted average common shares outstanding           11,710          7,926         11,706          7,926
Dilutive effect of stock options                      1,041          1,302          1,088          1,290
Mandatorily redeemable common stock issued
    to Adobe Ventures, L.P. on July 21, 1995             --            204             --            204
Mandatorily redeemable convertible preferred
    stock                                                --          1,057             --          1,057
Dilutive effect of warrants                             171            178            197            116
Number of shares used to compute net income
    per share                                        12,922         10,667         12,991         10,593
                                                    =======        =======        =======        =======

Net income                                          $   758        $   225        $   309        $   804
                                                    =======        =======        =======        =======

Net income per share                                $  0.06        $  0.02        $  0.02        $  0.08
                                                    =======        =======        =======        =======
</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01040901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/409 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/409

---

(2004/C 88 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2401/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Exemption from VAT on postage for charities

Subject:

Further to the Commission proposal to put VAT on postage and recognising that this would impose a severe financial burden on charities that depend on direct mail fundraising and are not eligible to reclaim VAT in the same way as ordinary businesses.

Can the Commission advise whether it will be possible for charities that have the specific difficulty of not being able to reclaim VAT under Irish tax law to secure an exemption from this EU legislation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

(5 September 2003)

The Commission's Proposal (1) amending Directive 77/388/EEC (2) as regards value added tax (VAT) on services provided in the postal sector, would allow Member States to apply a reduced rate to most postal services now used by private consumers. The scope of the proposed reduced rate would include direct mail sent by charities for fundraising purposes. According to the Commission's projections, were Ireland to apply a reduced rate of 5 % to those postal services, prices should not increase. The reason is that An Post is currently unable to deduct VAT it pays on its costs, most of it at the standard 21 % VAT rate. Once the proposal is adopted, the Post Office's costs will go down since it will be able to deduct VAT paid on them.

1

2

VAT takes account of the particular social interest involved in charitable activities by exempting certain supplies of goods and services effected by charities. It does not however exempt supplies effected by other businesses and acquired by charities. It is not practical to devise a system with different VAT liabilities for postal services depending on who is the person acquiring those services. Such a system would involve enormous compliance costs for postal operators, and be difficult for tax administrations to control.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 234 final.

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes-Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

2

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mary Jo David, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of LSB Financial Corp. (the "Registrant");

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 circumstancesunder which such statement were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financialcondition, 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 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) forthe registrant and we 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 theRegistrant, 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 proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

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

> 
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'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether of not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 13, 2003

/s/ Mary Jo DavidMary Jo DavidVice President and Chief Financial Officer
ANDERSON, et al v. COASTAL COMMUNITIES AT OCEAN RIDGE PLANTATION, INC., et al.

No. 376A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 10, 2014.

C. Wes Hodges, II, Wilmington, for Brearey, Jonathan, et al.

Sarah R. Buzzard.

J. Nicholas Ellis, Rocky Mount, for Branch Banking and Trust Company, et al.

David Dreifus.

Jacob H. Wellman, Raleigh, for Powell, James, et al.

**Opinion**

The following Order was entered:

> Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31(a) and (b)(2) and Rule 15(e)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court on its own initiative hereby certifies for review prior to determination in the Court of Appeals *Anderson, et al. v. Coastal Communities At Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc., et al.,* COA14-871. The case shall be docketed in this Court as of the date of this order. Briefs of the respective parties that have been submitted to the Court of Appeals shall be considered by this Court. Any party may file a new brief in this Court consistent with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Stainless & Alloy Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

May 7, 2010



|                                      |  |  |  |                                             
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dennis M. Oates                   |  |  |  | /s/ Ronald E. Hauck                         
|Dennis M. Oates                       |  |  |  | Ronald E. Hauck                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Corporate Controller                        
|(Principal Executive Officer)         |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
STATE v. Joshua WINKLER.

No. 440PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 15, 2015.

Craig M. Cooley, for Winkler, Joshua.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of June 2015 by Defendant:

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

Defendant shall have up to and including the 1st day of July 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(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.

 

 
| Dated:   April 29, 2011 | /s/   Vincent L. Sadusky                |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         | Vincent   L. Sadusky                    |
|                         | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |                                    |
|                         |                                    |
| Dated:   April 29, 2011 | /s/   Richard J. Schmaeling             |
|                         | Richard   J. Schmaeling                 |
|                         |                                    | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                              |                                         |  |

 

----