alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 14, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00437

- CV

Michael E. GEIGER

, Appellant

v.

Paul A. HAMPEL

, Appellee

From the 150th Judic ial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CI13615

Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Appellant’s motion to stay this proceeding is DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED on October 14, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Edward Keith SUGGS, Jr.

No. COA15-1371.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen N. Bolton, for the State.

Leslie Rawls, for defendant-appellant.

ZACHARY, Judge.

On 19 June 2015, defendant Edward Keith Suggs was convicted by a jury of three counts of possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana, three counts of sale and delivery of marijuana, and two counts of felony possession of marijuana. Defendant then pleaded guilty to having attained habitual felon status. The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of 55 to 78 months of imprisonment, and to a third, concurrent term of 55 to 78 months of imprisonment. Defendant gave notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant has been unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. Counsel has also shown to the satisfaction of this Court that she has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California,* 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,* 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Defendant has not filed any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court and a reasonable time in which he could have done so has passed. In accordance with *Anders,* we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. We have been unable to find any possible prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

NO ERROR.

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6425

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TONY ORLANDO HUGHES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (4:04-cr-00016-RGD-TEM-1; 4:07-cv-00033-RGD)

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Orlando Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, Janet S.

Reincke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Orlando Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
CONSENT OF SNOWDEN MINING INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS





To:    
British Columbia Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Manitoba Securities Commission
         Ontario Securities Commission
         Autorite des marches
financiers
         Toronto Stock Exchange

American Stock Exchange

US Securities and Exchange Commission







I, Andy Ross, on behalf of Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004

2.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Reports).

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 29 day of March, 2005.

signed

_______________________
Andy Ross



signing officer,

Snowden Mining Industry Consultants



[Seal or Stamp]
STATE v. James Anthony BARNETT, Jr.

No. 36P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 5, 2016.

Brendan O'Donnell, for Barnett, James Anthony (Jr.).

*801Jennifer Harjo, Wilmington, for Barnett, James Anthony (Jr.).

Iain M. Stauffer, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of February 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of February 2016."
State v. Mario Andrette McNeill

446A13-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 16, 2016

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McNeill, Mario Andrette.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, William West, District Attorney, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of August 2016 by State of NC :

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of August 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 14th day of September 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kadeem KIRK.

No. 40P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Mark Montgomery, for Kirk, Kadeem.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 16th of February 2016 by State of NC 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:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
Exhibit 10.12


 


COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


 


This
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (the “Compensation Agreement”) is entered into as of December 3,
2010, by and between Precision Optics, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation
(the “Company”) and Joseph N. Forkey, an individual residing in Massachusetts (“Employee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company owes Employee $29,999, representing all
deferred salary due to Employee as of the date of this Compensation Agreement (the
“Deferred Salary”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee have agreed to pay
Deferred Salary due to Employee via the issuance of common stock of the
Company; and


 


WHEREAS, all references to shares of the Company’s common
stock give effect to a 1 for 25 reverse stock split, effective December 11,
2008 (the “Reverse Split”).


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
undertakings set forth herein, and intending to be fully bound hereby, the
parties agree:


 


1.             Employee will forgive the
Deferred Salary owed to him by the Company, and in return, Company will issue
Employee 10,909 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”).


 


2.             The Shares will be issued as
registered common stock within 5 business days following the filling of a
Registration Statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, however if the Form S-8 is not filed within six months of this
agreement, the Shares will be issued as restricted common stock.


 


3.
            The shares
shall vest as follows: one eighth (1/8th) of the Shares shall vest on January 1, 2012,
and one eighth (1/8th) each quarter
thereafter on the first day of each quarter, commencing on April 1, 2012,
until the Shares are fully vested.


 


4.
            This
Compensation Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any other agreement verbal or
written.


 


5.
            This
Compensation Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Massachusetts, without regard to conflicts of laws
principles that would result in the application of the substantive law of
another jurisdiction. This Compensation Agreement may not be amended or
modified except by an instrument in writing signed by each party.


 


The
parties agree this compensation agreement may be delivered and/or returned by
telephone facsimile in one or more counterpart copies, and the parties may rely
upon the signatures hereto whether in original or facsimile copy.


 


Dated:
December 3, 2010


 


 


AGREED
AND ACCEPTED


 


By:
 Employee


 


	
  /s/Joseph
  N. Forkey

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Joseph N. Forkey

  	
   

  



 


 


By:
 Precision Optics, Inc. and duly authorized to sign:


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/Don
  Major

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Don Major

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
   Director
HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
             RETIREMENT PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

                       _________________
                        1999 Amendment
                       _________________

     WHEREAS, Harbor Federal Savings Bank (the "Bank") maintains
the Harbor Federal Savings Bank Retirement Plan for Non-employee
Directors (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, the Bank's Board of Directors has determined that
it is in the best interests of the Bank and the Plan
participants to amend the Plan in the manner set forth herein.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows,
pursuant to Article XI thereof, effective May 24, 1999:

     1.  Article VI of the Plan shall be amended by adding the
following paragraph at the end thereof as follows:


         Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the
         contrary, each Participant may at any time irrevocably
         elect, on the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the
         "Election Form"), to surrender all or part of his
         vested Benefits under the Plan in consideration of
         receiving a deferred share award, of equivalent value,
         pursuant to the Harbor Federal Bancorp, Inc. 1999 Stock
         Incentive Plan.  In addition, each Participant may also
         irrevocably elect on the Election Form to cease to
         accrue future benefits under this Plan and instead to
         accrue future deferred share awards under the Harbor
         Federal Bancorp, Inc 1999 Stock Incentive Plan rather
         than under the Plan.

     WHEREFORE, the undersigned hereby execute this 1999
Amendment to the Plan on May 24, 1999.

                               HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
Witnessed by:


/s/ Deborah A. Epps            By: /s/ J. Kemp Roche
-----------------------            -------------------------
                                   A director other than
                                   Robert A. Williams
State v. Jeffrey Lee McBride

272P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Jeffrey Lee McBride, for McBride, Jeffrey Lee.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of July 2016 by Defendant for Complaint/ Claim:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2008064EN.01003202.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/32

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-210/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 64/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
**Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 February 2008 – Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana**

**(Case C‐363/06 P)**

Appeal – Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Representation by a lawyer – Compliance with the essential procedural requirements of the Rules of Procedure – Principle of non-discrimination – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and
fourth paras, and 21, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(6)) (see paras 24-26, 34)*

2.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence
– Possible only where a clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 42)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2006 in Case T-357/05 | Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana | v | Commission | , by which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the appellant’s application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1867 final of 27 June 2005 concerning the reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to Project Group No 97/11/61/028, concerning the collection and treatment of waste waters on the Mediterranean coast of the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia (Spain) – Representation by a lawyer – Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia – Generalidad Valenciana to pay the costs. |
# C_2008209EN.01006903.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 — Bakema v Commission

(Case F-68/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Contract staff - Classification in grade - Function group IV - Diploma - Professional experience)

(2008/C 209/126)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reint J. Bakema (Zuidlaren, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Rijpkema and A. Kootstra)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's Decision refusing to reclassify the applicant from grade 14 to grade 16 in function group IV and to regard his ‘kandidaatsdiploma’ as attesting to completed university studies for the purposes of Article 82 of the CEOS and of Article 2 of the GPI concerning the procedures governing the engagement and employment of contract staff by the Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision by which the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement classified Mr Bakema in function group IV at grade 14, step 1, under the contract signed on 25 October 2005 recruiting him to the Commission of the European Communities as a member of the contract staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision by which the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Engagement classified Mr Bakema in function group IV at grade 14, step 1, under the contract signed on 25 October 2005 recruiting him to the Commission of the European Communities as a member of the contract staff;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006, p. 48

1

---
In the Matter of Tommie Junior Smith, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Ms. Elizabeth M. Haddix, Mr. Mark Dorosin, Mr. Edwin A. Pressly, Attorneys at Law, For Smith, Carson, et al.

Mr. Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, For State of North Carolina

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 21st of March 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"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 21st of March 2016 by State of NC to Consolidate Appeals:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE of North Carolina v. Keodaoheaung PHONGSAVANH.

No. COA16-58.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
November 22, 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TINA CHRISTINE MELVI N , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00939

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment

signed by the court below on September 8, 2011. Having considered the motion and

found it meritorious, the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its

opinion, t hat the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and that this decision be

certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,259                   9,865
<SECURITIES>                                     2,578                  20,861
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,200                  45,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,437                  84,897
<PP&E>                                          39,331                  35,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,254                 228,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,506                  16,654
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           476                     474
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,537                 145,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,254                 228,975
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,693                  24,899
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,635                  17,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (308)                   (358)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,366                   7,825
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,823                   3,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,543                   4,773
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,543                   4,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16                     .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16                     .11
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Eugene Johnny WILLIAMS.

No. 506A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 14, 2008.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Staples Hughes, Appellate Defender, for Williams.

William B. Crumpler, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of October 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Williams) shall have up to and including the 8th day of December 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of October 2008."