alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Robert Glenn CULLIFER, Jr. and Wife, Margaret P. Cullifer Dated October 4, 2007 and Recorded in Book 2957, Page 95, Onslow County Registry, to John Cameron Coburn Trustee.

No. COA15-426.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-44725) pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-95247) pertaining to
the PRT Group Inc. 401(k) Plan and (Form S-3 No. 333-36468) of our report
dated April 4, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of enherent Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
April 4, 2001
# CE2004088EN.01012301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/123 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/123

---

(2004/C 88 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2953/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) and Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Sentence of death by stoning in Nigeria

Subject:

Mr Jibrin Babaji, a Nigerian citizen aged 20, has been found guilty of sexual relations with three underage boys and has been sentenced to death by stoning. The sentence was handed down on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 by an Islamic court in Bauchi state, under the Sharia penal code.

Does the Commission have further information on the matter? What measures does it intend to take, in line with the European positions in favour of a moratorium on the death penalty worldwide, to ensure that this death sentence is not executed?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

(21 November 2003)

The Commission has followed closely appeals against death sentences passed by Sharia courts. It is encouraging to note that in some well-publicised recent cases those sentenced have been acquitted on appeal (Amina Lawal in Katsina and Safiya Husseini in Sokoto). The Commission is aware of the case of Jibril Babaji and expects to receive more details from Heads of Mission in Abuja.

The Commission unreservedly opposes the use of the death sentence. Where the death penalty still exists, the Union calls for its use to be progressively restricted, and where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced. The Troika made a démarche on the application of the death penalty in Nigeria on 12 February 2002.

Moreover, the Commission encourages governments to comply with international standards on human rights and to respect civil liberties without discrimination. The Commission seeks to end the practice in certain countries of public and particularly cruel executions.

As stated in several Council conclusions on Nigeria political dialogue is considered a constructive mechanism for raising human rights issues and questions concerning the death penalty. The Commission will also be guided by the Cotonou Agreement, for which an essential element is respect for human rights.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
               AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
               SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     481,846
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              235,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           777,204
<PP&E>                                   6,098,146
<DEPRECIATION>                           1,381,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           5,500,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,360,444
<BONDS>                                  1,251,436
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     3,824
<OTHER-SE>                               8,926,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             5,500,343
<SALES>                                  1,231,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,231,762
<CGS>                                    1,860,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,860,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            66,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,276,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,966,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,966,506)
<DISCONTINUED>                         (1,711,877)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (3,638,990)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.12)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Donna Helms LEDBETTER.

No. 402P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Meghan Adelle Jones, Raleigh, for Ledbetter, Donna Helms.

Ashleigh P. Dunston, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of December 2015 by Defendant to Hold Petition for Discretionary Review in Abeyance:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA
                                                          DATE: DECEMBER 13,2002

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: US $435,000
INTEREST RATE: 12% per annum

DUE DATE: DECEMBER 31,2003

FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned, Syndicated Food Services International Inc.,
a Florida corporation (the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of FIDRA
HOLDINGS LTD., OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS (THE "HOLDER"), the sum of Four
Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Dollars (USD $435,000.00) (The Principal). on
December 31, 2003 (The "Maturity Date"), together with the interest at the rate
of Twelve per cent (12%) per annum on the principal amount outstanding from time
to time until paid in full. All sums due hereunder shall be paid by the Borrower
to the holder of this Note at such address as designated by the holder of this
Note to the Borrower.

In the event a default shall be made in payment of any installment of interest
or principal or other charges when due all such amounts shall bear interest at a
default rate of interest from the date of default at the rate of 15 % per annum
and shall be immediately due and payable. In the event of any default hereunder
the holders shall be entitled to all remedies at law or in equity and shall be
entitled to all costs and expenses incurred by its, including attorneys fees.

This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Florida, without regard .to conflict of law principles. Any dispute
with respect to the interpretation of this Note or the rights and obligations
of the parties shall be exclusively brought in a proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida or if such court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Each
of the holder and the Borrower waives the right to context the jurisdiction or
venue of either of such courts or to claim it is an inconvenient forum.

Neither the Borrower nor the holder may claim the right to have a jury trial and
the Borrower shall have no right of offset or counterclaim.

The Borrower expressly waives the right to notice of any default or the right to
presentment or demand.

The proceeds of this Note shall be used to fund settlement costs associated with
certain 3rd Party. Billing complaints against Borrower and expenses associated
with general corporate matters.

SYNDICATED FOOD SERVICE INTERNATIONAL INC.

By: /s/ Thomas P. Tanis, Jr.
    ------------------------
    THOMAS P. TANIS, JR.
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                          67,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    244,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               424,327
<PP&E>                                       8,231,045
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,186,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,590,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,110,094
<BONDS>                                        767,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,212
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,692,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,590,524
<SALES>                                      6,226,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,226,631
<CGS>                                        2,063,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,127,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             211,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,182,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,182,294)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.75)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GameTech International, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jay M.
      Meilstrup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to my best knowledge
      and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and




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




/s/JAY
                M. MEILSTRUPJay
                M. Meilstrup
              Chief
                Executive OfficerJanuary
              29,
              2007
* 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. 06-41769 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JAVIER PINEDA-GONZALEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-415-4
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Javier Pineda-Gonzalez appeals from his conviction of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens within the United States. He contends that he was entitled to a downward adjustment to his guideline offense level for minor participation and acceptance of responsibility. The presentence report indicated that Pineda-Gonzalez wasa brush guide who helped conduct a group of 15 undocumented aliens into the country on a hike that lasted three days and three nights. He was in the cab of the pickup United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41769

2 used to transport the aliens when it was stopped. One alien saw PinedaGonzalez speaking on a cell phonewhile in the pickup, and Pineda-Gonzalez had the telephone number of coconspirator Arturo Garcia-Gonzalez in his wallet. Pineda-Gonzalez was held accountable only for the aliens transported in the pickup truck on May 18, 2006. As to that criminal episode, the district court's finding that he was not a minor participant is not clearly erroneous. See United Statesv. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001); United Statesv. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). Pineda-Gonzalez pleaded guilty after his trial had been underway for two days. The district court’s determination that Pineda-Gonzalez had not accepted responsibility for his offense was not without foundation. See United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409, 414 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 315 (2006). AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Earlene Etta HUGHES.

No. 211P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Glenn Gerding, Southport, for Hughes.

Sueanna P. Sumpter, Assistant Attorney General, Phil Berger, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*767*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of May 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 5, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40728

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE EPIFANIO ELIZARRARAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-781-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Epifanio Elizarraraz appeals his jury-trial conviction

on four counts of transporting illegal aliens, conspiracy, and

aiding and abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). 

Elizarraraz argues that the district court abused its discretion

in allowing improper opinion testimony by a law enforcement agent

and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his

convictions. 
No. 03-40728

-2-

Contrary to Elizarraraz’s contentions, the law enforcement

agent who testified at his trial did not offer profile evidence

or improper opinions regarding his guilty knowledge of the

presence of the illegal aliens in the trailer of his tractortrailer. The agent offered his analysis of the evidence found in

Elizarraraz’s case in the light of his special knowledge of alien

smuggling. See United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 610 & n.3

(5th Cir. 1994). Such testimony was admissible and the district

court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it. See id.

In asserting that the evidence was insufficient, Elizarraraz

challenges the guilty-knowledge elements of the crimes of

conviction. Elizarraraz’s control of the tractor-trailer,

considered together with the evidence of his failure to seal or

lock his load, his nervous behavior, his inconsistent statement

about his home address, the testimony of the aliens, and the

testimony of the agent describing a typical alien-smuggling

operation, was sufficient evidence from which the jury could

infer Elizarraraz’s guilty knowledge. See United States v.

Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government and giving the Government the benefit of all

reasonable inferences, there is sufficient evidence from which

the jury could infer that Elizarraraz knew that the illegal

aliens were in the trailer of his tractor-trailer and that he

knowingly participated in and aided and abetted an alien-
No. 03-40728

-3-

smuggling conspiracy. See id. at 597-99. Because “a reasonable

trier of fact could [have] f[ou]nd that the evidence

establishe[d] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Elizarraraz’s

insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim fails. See United States v.

Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), aff’d,

462 U.S. 356 (1983). 

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11



                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                                    Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                        2002            2001
                                                        ----            ----

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net Income (Loss)                                   $   151,911     $(1,084,927)
                                                    ===========     ===========

Weighted average Common Shares outstanding            8,120,406       7,295,402
                                                    ===========     ===========

Basic Net Income (Loss) Per Common Share            $       .02     $     (0.15)
                                                    ===========     ===========


DILUTED NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
Net Income (Loss)                                   $   151,911     $(1,084,927)
                                                    ===========     ===========

Weighted average Common Shares outstanding            8,120,406       7,295,402
Options and warrants assumed to be Common Stock
        equivalents using Treasury Stock Method       4,045,345               0
                                                    -----------     -----------
Weighted average common shares outstanding, as
        adjusted                                     12,165,751       7,295,402
                                                    ===========     ===========

Diluted Net Income (Loss) per Common Share          $       .01     $     (0.15)
                                                    ===========     ===========
In the Matter of L.A.S.

No. COA15-1224.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
YATES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Jeffrey L. BOSTIC, Michael Hartnett, and Joseph E. Bostic, Jr.

No. 74P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Zeyland G. McKinney, Jr., Robbinsville, for Yates Construction Company, Inc.

Eric W. Stiles, Robbinsville, for Yates Construction Company, Inc.

D. Erik Albright, for Hartnett, Michael.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Raleigh, for Hartnett, Michael.

Christine L. Myatt, Greensboro, for Bostic, Jeffrey L.

David S. Pokela, Greensboro, for Bostic, Jeffrey L.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of March 2016 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

6 December 2007

Case C-59/06 P

**Luigi Marcuccio**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeals – Officials – Employment in a non-Member State – Reassignment of post and post holder – Duty to respect the rights of the defence – Scope – Burden of proof)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 *Marcuccio* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐365 and II‐1621, by which that Court dismissed the action of the appellant seeking annulment of the Commission
decision reassigning the appellant’s post at the delegation of the Commission in Luanda (Angola) to the Commission’s headquarters
in Brussels and a claim for damages.

**Held:**the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 *Marcuccio* v *Commission* is set aside. The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. Costs are reserved.

**Summary**

*Officials – Principles* *– Rights of the defence* *– Scope* *–* *Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a decision involving his reassignment against his wishes – Burden
of proof*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CKE
RESTAURANTS, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCING TO SUCH FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          36,505
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,073
<PP&E>                                       1,378,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                 327,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,568,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,921
<BONDS>                                        359,225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           521
<OTHER-SE>                                     545,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,568,514
<SALES>                                      1,814,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,990,073
<CGS>                                        1,544,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,942,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,460)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (18,053)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,407)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    290
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,117)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.56)


</TABLE>