alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Reginald Lamont HERRING.

No. COA15-992.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit (23)

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
   on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. of our report dated February 6,
   1998, included in the 1997 Annual Report of Shareholders of LaCrosse
   Footwear, Inc.

   We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
   Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-77516, 33-77518 and 333-2702) pertaining
   to the LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. Employees' Retirement Savings Plan, the
   LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. Union Employees' Retirement Savings Plan and the
   LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. 1993 Employee Stock Incentive Plan of our report
   dated February 6, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
   statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report dated February
   6, 1998, with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
   Annual Report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. for the year ended
   December 31, 1997.


                                      McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP


   La Crosse, Wisconsin
   March 27, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                1,610,251
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         430,972
<ALLOWANCES>                          (4,175)
<INVENTORY>                           10,519,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                                476,167
<DEPRECIATION>                        (314,271)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        13,704,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                               9,023,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              2,905,514
<OTHER-SE>                            (193,887)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          13,704,577
<SALES>                               12,152,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      12,258,087
<CGS>                                 9,887,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         10,925,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,398,856
<INCOME-TAX>                          559,873
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          838,983
<EPS-BASIC>                         .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0
State of North Carolina v. Michael Harrison Hunt, Jr.

No. 370P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, For State of NC.

Michael Harrison Hunt, Jr., Pro Per.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Durham 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 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of April 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of April 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2006,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., each certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 6, 2006



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 6, 2006
FILED 

APR 3 0 2012 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

William Cornelius Gibbs, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

12 0682 

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be 

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a 

determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). 

Plaintiff is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West 

Virginia, suing under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971), to challenge the constitutionality ofthe statutes under which he was convicted. 

The gravamen of the complaint is that the sentencing court, the United States District Court for 

the Western District of North Carolina, lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs criminal prosecution. 

Because the success of plaintiffs claim would necessarily void his conviction, plaintiff 

cannot recover monetary damages, which is the only available remedy under Bivens, without first 

showing that he has invalidated the conviction by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by 

executive order, declar[ ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 

5 
512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); see, e.g., Taylor v. US. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882,883 (D.C. 

Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for 

challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. I.N.S., 

106 F.3d 680,683 (51

h Cir. 1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with 

jurisdiction to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during 

sentencing). 

Plaintiff has not shown the invalidation of his conviction and, thus, has failed to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted under Bivens. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies 

this Memorandum Opinion. 

<t 

Date: April~, 2012 

2 

..
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Albert THOMAS.

No. COA15-936.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-03886, Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form S-8 No. 333-74565, Form
S-8 No. 333-96197 and Form S-8 No. 333-37658) pertaining to the Renal Care
Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan for Outside
Directors, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. Third Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan, the Renal Care
Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the Dialysis
Centers of America, Inc. Equity Compensation Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc.
1999 Long -Term Incentive Plan, and the Renal Disease Management by Physicians,
Inc. Amended and Restated 1997/1998 Stock Plan with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.



                                                 /s/  Ernst & Young, LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 26, 2001
# CE2004070EN.01001601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/16

---

(2004/C 70 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3646/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Detention of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva

Subject:

As the Commission is aware, Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva, the chairman of the Cuban Human Rights Foundation and the Brotherhood of the Independent Blind People of Cuba, has been detained in prison in Holguín, Cuba, since March 2002 (see written question E-1458/02 (1)).

1

Is the Commission also aware that he is being assaulted and beaten, and is in danger of dying of malnutrition?

Will the Commission take action and bring pressure to bear on the authorities there in order to secure an end to the violent treatment meted out to human rights activists in Cuba?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

(14 February 2003)

The Commission is being kept informed regularly of the situation of Mr Gonzalez Leiva. According to its information the human rights activist weighed only 90 pounds at the beginning of January 2003 due to a fast he began on 4 September 2002 and which he ended on 25 December 2002 in order to protest against the accusations against him and other activists involved in the case.

The Commission has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Cuban authorities to the situation of Mr Gonzalez Leiva and the human rights situation in general. As with other partner countries, the internal human rights situation is and will remain an important aspect of our relationship with Cuba. The Commission believes that a policy of engagement and dialogue is the most likely to help bringing about a positive evolution in this respect.

---

(1)  OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 109.

1

---
----

(2004/C 70 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2385/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   State aids assessment

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

----

(1)OJ C 102, 27.4.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for application of Article 93 (now 88) of the Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(3)  Case C-204/97 Portugal v Commission [2001] ECR I-3175, paragraph 33; Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94 British Airways and Others and British Midland Airways v Commission [1998] ECR II-2405, paragraph 59.

(4)  Commission Decision 2003/433/EC of 21 January 2003 on the aid scheme ‘Stamp duty exemption for nonresidential properties in disadvantaged areas’ notified by the United Kingdom, OJ L 149, 17.6.2003.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. William Patrick CURRY, Jr.

No. COA15-410.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Exhibit 99.1

Edison Mission Energy  Distribution Summary  For the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000

|                                                       |                                                              | Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------
|
|
|Distributions from Consolidated Operating Projects     |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       | Edison Mission Midwest Holdings (Illinois Plants)            |                                 
|                                                       | EME Homer City Generation L.P. (Homer City facilities) (1)   |                                 
|                                                       | First Hydro Holdings                                         |                                 
|                                                       | Holdings companies of other consolidated operating projects  |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|Distributions from Non-Consolidated Operating Projects |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       | Distributions from Big 4 projects (2)                        |                                 
|                                                       | Distributions from Four Star Oil and Gas Company             |                                 
|                                                       | Distributions from other non-consolidated operating projects |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 
|Total Distributions                                    |                                                              | $                               
|                                                       |                                                              |                                 

---

---

QuickLinks
# C_2023127EN.01005301.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/53

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-84/23)

(2023/C 127/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Data Protection Commission (represented by: D. Young, A. Bateman and R. Minch, Solicitors, B. Kennelly, SC, D. Fennelly and E. Synnott, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the second lines of paragraphs 203 and 454 of Binding Decision 4/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the second lines of paragraphs 203 and 454 of Binding Decision 4/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Instagram service;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission (the ‘DPC’) to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission (the ‘DPC’) to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55301-55302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18590]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 53

[WC Docket No. 03-228; FCC 04-54]


Section 272(b)(1)'s ``Operate Independently'' Requirement for 
Section 272 Affiliates; Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register on March 30, 2004 (69 FR 16494), revising 
Commission rules. That document inadvertently failed to remove 
paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3), and redesignate paragraph (a)(1) as 
paragraph (a). This document corrects the final regulations by revising 
these sections.

DATES: Effective on September 21, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Shewman, Acting Assistant 
Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at 
(202) 418-1686.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a correction of a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2004, 69 FR 16494.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 53

    Communications common carriers, Special provisions concerning bell 
operating companies, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Change

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 53 as follows:

PART 53--SPECIAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING BELL OPERATING COMPANIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 1-5, 7, 201-05, 218, 251, 253, 271-75, 48 
Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 151-55, 157, 201-05, 218, 
251, 253, 271-75, unless otherwise noted.


[[Page 55302]]



0
2. Section 53.203(a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  53.203  Structural and transactional requirements.

    (a) Operational independence. A section 272 affiliate and the BOC 
of which it is an affiliate shall not jointly own transmission and 
switching facilities or the land and buildings where those facilities 
are located.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-18590 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
WILNER, et al. v. The CEDARS OF CHAPEL HILL, LLC, et al.

No. 234P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

James T. Williams, Jr., Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

D.J. O'Brien, III, Greensboro, for the Cedars of Chapel Hill, LLC, et al.

Benjamin R. Kuhn, Raleigh, for Wilner, Jonathan, et al.

Amie C. Sivon, Raleigh, for Wilner, Diane, et al.

R. Michael Pipkin, Chapel Hill, for Wilner, Diane, et al.

Paul Stam, Apex, for N.C. Association of Realtors.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of August 2015 by Defendants to Strike Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# C_2009267EN.01008202.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/82

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2009 — Fjord Seafood Norway and Others v Council

(Case T-113/06) (1)

1

2009/C 267/146

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be in part removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 9, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 9, 2008