alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ORBAN, et al. v. PIKE CORPORATION, et al.

No. 32A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 2016.

Scott M. Tyler, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

Glenn E. Ketner, III, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

David G. Schiller, Raleigh, for Orban, Michael.

J. Daniel Albert, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., for Lieberg, Collin.

Marc Ackerman, for Lieberg, Collin.

Richard A. Maniskas, for Lieberg, Collin.

Kurt F. Hausier, for Beickert, Edwin.

*170Brian D. Long, for Beickert, Edwin.

The following order has been entered on the consent motion filed on the 28th of March 2016 by Defendant (Pike Corporation) to Withdraw and Dismiss Appeals:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of March 2016."
# C_2009256EN.01000201.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Moser Baer India Ltd v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

(Case C-535/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Dumping - Imports of recordable compact discs originating in India - Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 - Calculation of the amount of countervailable subsidy - Determination of injury - Article 8(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97)

2009/C 256/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Moser Baer India Ltd (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, dikigoros, and R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents), Committee of European CD-R and DVD+/-R Manufacturers (CECMA)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 4 October 2006 in Case T-300/03 Moser Baer India v Council, which dismissed an action for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact discs originating in India (OJ 2003 L 138, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appellant.

Moser Baer India

Council

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Moser Baer India Ltd to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moser Baer India Ltd to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
## I N T H E CO U R T O F CR I MI N A L A PP EA LS O F T E X AS N O . A P - 76,159
E X PA R T E FR E D E R I C KV I C T O R D A SC O , A ppl i c a nt
ON APP LI CATI ON F ORA W RI T OF HABEAS CO RPUS CAUSE NO . 1 1 3 3 6 6 1 I N THE 3 5 1 DI S TRI CT CO URT ST FRO M H AR RI S CO UN TY
P e r c u r ia m. O P I N I O N Pur s uant t o t he pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e 11.07 of

t he Texas C ode of

C r i m i nal Pr oce dur e, t he cl er k of t he t r i al cour t t r ans m i t t ed t o t hi s C our t t hi s appl i ca t i on f orw r i t of habe as corpus . E

xp a r te Young , 4 1 8 S
. W
. 2 d

8 2 4 , 8 2 6 (T e x . C ri m. A p p . 1 9 6 7 )
. Ap p lic ant w a s c o nv ic te d o f fa ilure to r egi s t er as a s ex of

f ende r a n d s e n t enc ed t o t w o yea r s ’ i m pr i s onm ent i n T D C J
- I D
. H e di d not appe al hi s convi ct i on. A p p l i cant co nt en d s t h at h i s p l ea w as i nv o l unt ary b ecau se h e w as i m p rop erl yadm o n i sh ed for a t h i rd d eg ree fel o nyan d h i s sent en ce is i l l eg al bec au se h e w as sent en ced o ut si d e the p rop er puni s hm ent r ange f

ora s t at e j ai l f

el ony. T h e tr i al court h as d eter m i n ed t h at A p p l i cant w as i m p rop erl yadm o n i sh ed an d sent en ced2

f ora t hi r d d e g r ee f

el ony i ns t ea d of

a s t at e j ai l f

el ony and t her ef

or e hi s pl eaw as i nvol unt ar y. A ppl i ca nt i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef
. E xp a r te H u e r ta , 6 9 2 S
. W
. 2 d

6 8 1 (T e x . C rim. A

p p . 1 9 8 5 ). Re lie f is g rante d
. T h e ju d g me nt in C au s e N o . 1 1 3 3 6 6 1 inth e 3 5 1 J u d ic ia l D istric t C o urt st o f H arri s C o unty is s e t asid e , an d A p p li c ant is reman d e d to th e c u sto dyo f t h e sh e ri ff o f H a rri s C o untyto an s w e r t h e c h arg e s a s s e t o ut in th e in d ic tme nt. C o p i es o f t h i s o p i n i o n s h a l l b e sent t o t h e T ex as D ep art m ent o f C ri m i n al J us t i ce –C or r ec t i onal I ns t i t ut i ons D i vi s i on and Par dons and Par ol es D i vi s i on.
D el i ver ed: J une 3, 2009 D o N o t P u

b li sh
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-7990 CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. GARD, Supervisor, Deputy United States Marshal, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-7991 CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. GARFIELD DILLARD, Chairman, in his personal and professional capacity; LEWIS P. BARLOW,Superintendent, in his personal and professional capacity; MAJOR SPIKER, in his personal and professional capacity; LIEUTENANT WRIGHT, in his personal and professional capacity;OTHERS UNKNOWN, in their personal and professional capacities, Defendants - Appellees.2 No. 95-7992 CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN MARSHALL, Deputy, United States Marshal, Defendant - Appellee.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-641-2, CA-95-747-2, CA-95-756-2) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his Bivens * complaints. The district court assessed filing fees in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the cases without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee orders. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court's orders. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-1917 

DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS, LLC,

Creditor - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD VERNON SAMEK,

Debtor - Appellee.

No. 07-1918

DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES AMERICAS, LLC,

Creditor - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD VERNON SAMEK,

Debtor - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Stephen C. St. John, Bankruptcy

Judge. (06-72001-SCS)

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 10, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
 2 

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen P. Hale, Jacob C. Zweig, HALE, DEWEY & KNIGHT, PLLC,

Memphis, Tennessee; M. Richard Epps, Sara A. John, M. RICHARD EPPS,

P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael J. Heath,

Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 3 

PER CURIAM:

DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, appeals

directly from the bankruptcy court’s orders overruling its

objection and confirming the Chapter 13 plan of the Debtor,

Richard Samek. The bankruptcy court held that the bankruptcy code,

as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer

Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), permits the debtor to surrender

undersecured collateral in full satisfaction of a secured claim.

In light of our decision in Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Kenney (In Re

Kenney), 531 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2008), we vacate the bankruptcy

court’s orders and remand for further proceedings consistent with

Kenney. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2006 – Commission v Parthenon**

**(Case T‐7/05)**

Arbitration clause – Fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration – Recovery of sums advanced

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Art. 238 EC; Decision of the European Parliament and
Council No 1110/94) (see paras 73-92, 94-107)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| ACTION brought pursuant to Article 238 EC for the recovery of sums advanced within the framework of Contract FAIR-CT98-9544, terminated by the Commission for failure by the defendant to perform its contractual obligations. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the defendant, Parthenon AE Ikodomikon – Tekhnikon – Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion, to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 154 383.53, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus 1.5 percentage points for the period from 31 July to 31 December 2002 and plus 2 percentage points as from 1 January 2003 until full and final discharge; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the application as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the defendant, and orders the defendant to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission. |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40133

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFONSO LOPEZ-MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1203-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Supreme Court vacated our judgment in United States v. LopezMorales, 256 F. App’x 726 (2007), and remanded this matter for further

consideration in the light of Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). LopezMorales v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2933 (2008). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40133

2

In our first decision, we rejected Lopez’ assertions that the district court

had erroneously applied a presumption of reasonableness to the advisory

guidelines sentencing range and had failed to give adequate weight to the

sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We held: that “[t]he district court’s

remarks at sentencing show that Lopez’s sentence was the result of a balancing

of the proper factors, including the guidelines and the considerations of §

3553(a)”; and that the presumption-of-reasonableness issue, as conceded by

Lopez, was foreclosed by Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). 256

F. App’x at 726. 

In Gall, the Supreme Court held: courts of appeals may not use a rigid,

mathematical formula in reviewing a district court’s decision to depart from the

properly-calculated guidelines sentencing range, nor may they require a district

courtto show extraordinary circumstances to depart from that range. 128 S. Ct.

at 595. The Court further held: district court sentencing decisions are subject

to abuse-of-discretion review; and courts of appeals may afford a presumption

of reasonableness to sentences within a properly-calculated guidelines

sentencing range. Id. at 597. 

Subsequentto remand,the parties were instructed to file briefs addressing

the impact, if any, of Gall on this matter. Lopez essentially repeats his original

contentions that the district court applied an erroneous presumption of

reasonableness to the guidelines sentencing range, an assertion we have already

rejected and that is unaffected by Gall. Lopez also appears to contend that the

district court’s reliance on the controlled-substance guidelines was error because

of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558

(2007). In any event, that issue was not raised in Lopez’ appeal here and is not

within the scope of the remand from the Supreme Court. 

AFFIRMED.
# CE2004070EN.01011402.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/114

---

(2004/C 70 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2589/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Council

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Possible follow-up to the ‘defence summit’ held in Brussels in April 2003

Subject:

In late April 2003 in Brussels, at the invitation of the Belgian Government, something akin to a defence policy summit was held involving only France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium itself. According to the participants, the talks were being held with the ultimate aim of strengthening the European pillar of NATO. A core set of collective capabilities was to be developed and by 2004 at the latest strategic headquarters were to be set up at the Panquin Barracks in Tervuren.

What is the precise status of these decisions?

Have the proposals drawn up by the above-mentioned Member States since been discussed further in the presence of the other Member States? If so, what was the outcome of those talks?

Does the Council have a timetable for possible talks on the development of a core set of collective military capabilities?

Has the Council taken steps to ensure the availability of the Panquin Barracks? Have practical arrangements been made with a view to financing the process of making this facility operational?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

(5 December 2003)

As the meeting referred to by the Honourable Member was not held within the legal framework of the European Union, it is not for the Council to comment on the status of any decisions taken at that meeting. Likewise, the Council does not have a timetable for talks on developing a ‘core set of military capabilities’.

However, the proposals made at that meeting were presented to the Council in May 2003 by the participants.

The issue of military capabilities is regularly on the Council agenda.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                                  Exhibit 11.1
                                        

                         APPLIED VOICE TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)
                                        
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                Quarter ended        Nine Months ended
                                September 30,          September 30,
                                -------------        -----------------
                                     1997                  1997
                                -------------        -----------------
                                (in thousands, except per share data)

                                                                Fully
                                   Primary           Primary   Diluted
                                -------------        -------   ------- 
<S>                             <C>                  <C>       <C>
Net income (loss)                   $2,109            $2,686    $2,686
                                    ======            ======    ======
Computation of common and 
 common equivalent shares
 outstanding:
  Common Stock                       5,713             5,656     5,656
  Options                              629               504       735
                                    ------            ------    ------ 
Common and common equivalent 
 shares used in computing per 
 share amounts                       6,342             6,160     6,391
                                    ======            ======    ======
Net income per share                $ 0.33            $ 0.44    $ 0.42
                                    ======            ======    ======
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-11082

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES MICHAEL LAWRENCE, a/k/a

Mike Lawrence, a/k/a Mitchell Lawrence,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CR-326-3

_________________________________________________________________ May 18, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Michael Lawrence has appealed the sentence imposed by

the district court following entry of his guilty plea to count 1 of

an indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent

to distribute methamphetamine. Lawrence contends that the district

court erred in determining that he was a manager or supervisor in

the conspiracy and in imposing a 3-level increase in offense level

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.a(b). Because Lawrence did not object-2-

to the district court to the upward adjustment, we review this

issue for plain error. S ee United States v. Mitchell

, 31 F.3d 271,

278 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court’s finding as to Lawrence’s

role in the offense was not plainly erroneous. See id. Lawrence

contends that he was entitled to a reduction in offense level under

the “Safety Valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. Lawrence

concedes that this provision does not apply to defendants who are

found to be managers or supervisors under § 3B1.1. Lawrence

contends that the government failed to prove that the conspiracy

dealt in d-Methamphetamine, as opposed to 1-Methamphetamine, which

is less severely punished under the guidelines. S ee United States

v. O’Bryant

, 136 F.3d 980, 981-82 (5th Cir. 199 8). The district

court’s implicit finding that the conspiracy was dea ling in

d-Methamphetamine was not clearly erroneous. The judgment is

A F F I R M E D.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3633 

To clarify that certain recipients of payments from the Federal Government 

related to the delivery of health care services to individuals shall not 

be treated as Federal contractors by the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs based on the work performed or actions taken 

by such individuals that resulted in the receipt of such payments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2013 

Mr. WALBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To clarify that certain recipients of payments from the Federal Government related to the delivery of health care 

services to individuals shall not be treated as Federal 

contractors by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs based on the work performed or actions taken 

by such individuals that resulted in the receipt of such 

payments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Health Care 

5 Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3633 IH

1 SEC. 2. NON-FEDERAL CONTRACTOR STATUS FOR ENTITIES 

2 RECEIVING CERTAIN HEALTH CARE-RE3 LATED FEDERAL PAYMENTS. 

4 A State, a local government, or other recipient that 

5 receives a payment from the Federal Government, directly 

6 or indirectly and regardless of reimbursement method7 ology, related to the delivery of health care services to indi8 viduals, whether or not such individuals are or have been 

9 employed by the Federal Government, shall not be treated 

10 as a Federal contractor or subcontractor by the Office of 

11 Federal Contract Compliance Programs based on the work 

12 performed or actions taken by such individuals that re13 sulted in the receipt of such payments. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Terry THORNE, Defendant.

No. COA15-404.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE v. Leonard HARDY.

No. 260P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 30, 2015.

Hannah Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hardy, Leonard.

*835Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney Geneal, for State of North Carolina.

C. Branson Vickery, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of July 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of July 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Eugene SPINKS.

No. COA15-277.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
IN RE A.B.W.

No. COA08-626.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Catawba (05JA88, 05JA89).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.