alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnnie L. HARRINGTON.

No. 441P92-7.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Johnnie L. Flarrington, for Flarrington, Johnnie L.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Lee 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 28th of January 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136536 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136536 

 COA: 281018 

Newaygo CC: 05-008600-FH

SCOTT ANTHONY FORREST,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.1



KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants                               Telephone    (416) 228-7000
Yonge Corporate Centre                              Telefax      (416) 228-7123
4120 Yonge Street, Suite 500                        www.kpmg.ca
Toronto, ON M2P 2B8
CANADA

                              Accountants' Consent

The Board of Directors
AT&T Canada Inc.

We consent to the use of our report dated February 1, 2002, except as to note 2,
which is as of March 14, 2002, as to note 5, which is as of February 20, 2002
and as to note 9(h), which is as of May 1, 2002, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of AT&T Canada Inc. ("the Company") as at December 31, 2001 and
2000 and the related consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash
flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2001,
which report is incorporated by reference in this Form 40-F.

Our report dated February 1, 2002, except as to note 2, which is as of March 14,
2002, as to note 5, which is as of February 20, 2002 and as to note 9(h), which
is as of May 1, 2002, contains Comments by the Auditors for U.S. Readers on
Canada - U.S. Reporting Differences which states that in the United States,
reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory
paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when the financial statements are
affected by conditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern such as those described in note 2 to the
consolidated financial statements. Our report to the shareholders is expressed
in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do not permit a reference
to such conditions and events in the auditors' report when these are adequately
disclosed in the financial statements.

/s/KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Canada
May 1, 2002
The BARNEY G. JOYNER FAMILY TRUST, a North Carolina trust, David Lee Joyner, individually and as co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, Phyllis M. Joyner, individually and as co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, and Phyllis Joyner Chappell, individually and as co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v. Carolyn Joyner DRIGGERS, individually and as co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, William E. Driggers, Jr., Appletree Daycare, Inc., and Appletree Child Development Center, Inc., Defendants. and Carolyn Joyner Driggers, individually and as co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. David Lee Joyner, individually and as trustee, co-trustee, and attorney-in-fact for the trustees of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, and as Executor of the Estate of Barney G. Joyner, and as attorney-in-fact for Phyllis M. Joyner, and Ronald Dorrestein, individually and in his capacity as attorney for the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust and the Estate of Barney G. Joyner, Third-Party Defendants.

No. COA15-1017.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed as moot.
* 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. 07-40426

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JONATA RIVERA SAENZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-141-1

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jonata Rivera Saenz

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rivera Saenz has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. John David WATSON.

No. COA15-715.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 19, 2016. Mandate February 8, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
In the Matter of: M.A.P.

No. COA16-279

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

VACATED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,852,111
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,947,575
<PP&E>                                      12,257,648
<DEPRECIATION>                               (278,482)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,926,741
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          547,557
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,379,184
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,926,741
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               715,401
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                432,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            432,635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   432,635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.90
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3708 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

or revise regulations with respect to the medical certification of certain 

small aircraft pilots, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Mr. ROKITA (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mr. FLORES, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. HANNA, and Mr. POMPEO) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue or revise regulations with respect to 

the medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘General Aviation Pilot 

5 Protection Act of 2013’’. 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3708 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN SMALL AIR2 CRAFT PILOTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

5 Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise med6 ical certification regulations to ensure that an individual 

7 may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft 

8 without regard to any medical certification or proof of 

9 health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law 

10 if— 

11 (1) the individual possesses a valid State driv12 er’s license and complies with any medical require13 ment associated with that license; 

14 (2) the individual is transporting not more than 

15 5 passengers; 

16 (3) the individual is operating under visual 

17 flight rules; and 

18 (4) the relevant flight, including each portion 

19 thereof, is not carried out— 

20 (A) for compensation, including that no 

21 passenger or property on the flight is being car22 ried for compensation; 

23 (B) at an altitude that is more than 

24 14,000 feet above mean sea level; 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 3708 IH

1 (C) outside the United States, unless au2 thorized by the country in which the flight is 

3 conducted; or 

4 (D) at a speed exceeding 250 knots. 

5 (b) COVERED AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, 

6 the term ‘‘covered aircraft’’ means an aircraft that— 

7 (1) is not authorized under Federal law to carry 

8 more than 6 occupants; and 

9 (2) has a maximum certificated takeoff weight 

10 of not more than 6000 pounds. 

11 SEC. 3. REPORT. 

12 Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment 

13 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Ad14 ministration shall submit to Congress a report that de15 scribes the impact that the regulations issued or revised 

16 under section 2 have had, including statistics with respect 

17 to changes in small aircraft activity and safety incidents. 

Æ 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008209EN.01001501.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/15

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault

(Case C-109/07) (1)

1

(Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 209/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Prud'homie de pêche

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

Applicant:

Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues — Interpretation of Article 11a of Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997 L 132, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p. 1) — Definition of ‘drift-net’ — Whether that definition includes the ‘thonaille’ — Environmental objective of the prohibitive measure laid down in Article 11a — Validity of this provision in the light, in particular, of the legal basis used for its adoption

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Prud'homie de pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2012355EN.01001402.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Total v Commission

(Case T-344/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement)

2012/C 355/24

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented: initially by A. Lamothe, L. Godfroid and A. Gosset-Grainville, and subsequently by A. Lamothe, L. Godfroid and O. Prost, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Total SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Total SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3667 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3667

    To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase by 10 
 percentage points the required State match for certain newly eligible 
  individuals under the Medicaid program and to apply savings against 
  sequestration reductions otherwise required, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2013

  Mr. Harris (for himself, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Duncan of South 
 Carolina, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. 
 Cassidy, Mr. Fleming, and Mr. Burgess) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
      addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase by 10 
 percentage points the required State match for certain newly eligible 
  individuals under the Medicaid program and to apply savings against 
  sequestration reductions otherwise required, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. 10 PERCENTAGE POINT INCREASE IN STATE MATCHING FOR NEWLY 
              ELIGIBLE MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES.

    Subparagraphs (A) through (E) of section 1905(y)(1) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(y)(1)) are amended by striking ``100 
percent'', ``95 percent'', ``94 percent'', ``93 percent'', and ``90 
percent'' and inserting ``90 percent'', ``85 percent'', ``84 percent'', 
``83 percent'', and ``80 percent'', respectively.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF SAVINGS AGAINST SEQUESTRATION.

    The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized 
and directed to increase the discretionary spending limit under section 
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
for the security category by $20,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2014 and 
then to increase the security and the nonsecurity categories for that 
fiscal year each by half of the remaining estimated reduction in new 
budget authority resulting from the enactment of section 1.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3823 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3823

    For the relief of John Cheruiyot Kemboi and Winnie Njeri Kemboi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2014

  Mr. Tiberi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    For the relief of John Cheruiyot Kemboi and Winnie Njeri Kemboi.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JOHN CHERUIYOT KEMBOI AND 
              WINNIE NJERI KEMBOI.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, John Cheruiyot Kemboi and 
Winnie Njeri Kemboi shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant 
visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If John Cheruiyot Kemboi or Winnie Njeri 
Kemboi enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to John Cheruiyot Kemboi and 
Winnie Njeri Kemboi, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of John 
Cheruiyot Kemboi and Winnie Njeri Kemboi shall not, by virtue of such 
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Jos. A. BankClothiers, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended January 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David E. Ullman, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| April 11, 2006 |   | /s/ DAVID  E. ULLMAN    |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                |   | David E. Ullman    |
|                |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Monte Jaharia PETERS.

No. COA16-34.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Allen SCOTLAND.

No. COA15-421.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     52,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,554
<PP&E>                                         857,150
<DEPRECIATION>                               (115,083)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 947,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   947,405
<SALES>                                        167,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,994
<CGS>                                          141,688
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,562
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,844
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,844
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23


</TABLE>