alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6439

AEDAN MCCARTHY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

M. PETTIFORD, Warden, FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(8:07-cv-00243-MBS)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aedan McCarthy, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Aedan McCarthy, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. McCarthy v. Pettiford, No. 8:07-cv-00243-MBS (D.S.C. Mar.

4, 2008). We deny McCarthy’s motion to place his appeal in

abeyance pending completion of his transfer to another facility.

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
STATE v. John Lewis WRAY, Jr.

No. 382P10-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

John L. Wray, Jr., Laurinburg, for Wray, John Lewis, Jr.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of December 2015 by Defendant to Remand:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

BEASLEY, J. recused.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

**Certification of Marc Holliday, President of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of the Registrant, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

I, Marc Holliday, President of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L. P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1)         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (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 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.

 
| Dated:    May 13, 2011 | By:    | /s/   Marc Holliday                                                                   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | Marc   Holliday                                                                       |
|                        |   | President   of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

1

----
**Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 – Greece v Commission**

**(Case T-344/05)**

EAGGF – Guaranteee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Beef – Extensification payment – Arable crops – Fruit and vegetables – Aid for processing of citrus fruit – Conditions for application of 100% flat-rate financial correction – Proportionality

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of administrative
controls and on-the-spot checks – Scope – Unreliable controls – Disallowance by the Fund (Council Regulation No 1258/1999,
Art. 8(1)) (see paras 74-75, 269-270)*

2.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts – Disallowance of expenditure arising from irregularities in the application of
the Community rules – Challenge by the Member State concerned – Burden of proof – Allocation between the Commission and the
Member State (Council Regulation No 1258/1999) (see paras 76-77, 313)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Rules of administrative conduct of general scope – Measure designed to produce external effects
– Scope (see para. 192)*

4.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Decision relating to the clearance of accounts in respect
of expenditure financed by the EAGGF (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 251-252)*

5.                     *European Union law – Principles – Proportionality – Scope – Discretion of the EU legislature in the area of the common agricultural
policy – Judicial review – Limits (Arts 40 TFEU and 43 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1169/97, Art. 20(5), first para.) (see
paras 289-295)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2005 L 188, p. 36), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the beef, arable crops and fruit and vegetables sectors. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2055/555/EC of 15 July 2005, excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic in respect of extensification payments made for the years 2000 and 2001; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of the European Commission; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs of the Hellenic Republic. |
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00471-CR

Catarino Vernon

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. S-22-3403CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 30, 2024
John PRICE v. STATE of North Carolina OFFICE OF the STATE AUDITOR.

No. 471P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Brandon L. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

*902Michael C. Byrne, for Price, John.

Valerie L. Bateman, OSHR General Counsel, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of December 2014 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE v. James Donald KING.

No. 204A99-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 7, 2009.

Diane Reeves, Raleigh, for Special Deputy Attorney General.

R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of January 2009 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (King) shall have up to and including the 9th day of February 2009 to file and serve his/her Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 7th day of January 2009."
# C_2009282EN.01004002.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission

(Case T-380/06) (1)

1

(Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Amendment of the entry in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Directive 2006/76/EC - Retroactivity - No transitional period - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment)

2009/C 282/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the second paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC of 22 September 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification of the active substance chlorothalonil (OJ 2006 L 263, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01017101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/171

---

(2004/C 70 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2986/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment — brain drain

Subject:

On page 16 of the Commission Communication COM(2003) 336, it is stated that ‘recourse to immigrants should not be detrimental to developing countries, particularly with respect to the brain drain’. The emigration of high skilled workers from the developing countries to Europe therefore constitutes a phenomenon that drives such countries into a vicious circle: the lack of a high skilled and dynamic labour force (plant managers, professional employees, etc.) simply makes the situation there more difficult.

However, earlier on in the document, reference is made to the problem of native unskilled or low skilled workers being adversely affected by large-scale immigration of low skilled labour from outside the European Union. In our knowledge-based economy, the need for low skilled labour (certainly from outside the Union) is small. What is more, further immigration of that type is undesirable, inter alia on social and economic grounds.

On the one hand, the Commission is seeking to attract high skilled workers (although without causing a brain drain), and, on the other, it acknowledges the problem of the uneven distribution of the burdens of immigration in Europe (situation of the low skilled). How does the Commission think that it will be able to reconcile these two considerations?

---
Exhibit
4.1

    


    Except
from Written Resolutions of the Directors of the Company dated 10 September 2010
filed with the Registrar of Companies of the Cayman Islands and setting out the
rights of Preferred Shares

    


    RIGHTS ATTACHED TO THE
PREFERRED SHARES

    


    IT WAS NOTED THAT the Company
had 781,250 preferred shares (the “Preferred Shares”) all of
which are currently unissued, which it proposed to issue an aggregate of
98,885.4 Preferred Shares having the same rights as the ordinary shares save
that the Preferred Shares would automatically be converted into ordinary shares
on a 1 Preferred Share for 100 oridnary share(s) basis upon the approval of the
shareholders of the Company to increase the authorised share capital of the
Company from 39,062,500 ordinary shares to 100,000,000 ordinary shares and the
filing of such approval to increase the authorised share capital with the
Registrar of Companies of Cayman Islands.

    


    IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT
article 12 of the articles of association of the Company (the “Articles”) states (emphasis
added):

    


    “Subject
to the provisions, if any, in that behalf of the Memorandum of Association or
these Articles, and to any direction that may be given by the Company in general
meeting and without
prejudice to any special rights previously conferred on the holders of existing
shares,
all unissued
shares in the capital of the Company shall be under the control of the
Directors, and the Directors may issue, allot, grant options over, re-designate
or dispose of such unissued shares (including fractions of a share) with or
without preferred, deferred or other special rights or such restrictions whether
in regard to dividend, voting, return of capital or otherwise and in such
manner, to such persons and on such terms as the Directors in their absolute
discretion think fit.”

    


    IT WAS NOTED THAT the issue of the
above Preferred Shares would not prejudice any special rights previously
conferred on the holders of existing ordinary shares.

    


    IT WAS
RESOLVED that the Preferred Shares be issued with the rights set out
above.


    


    ALLOTMENT AND ISSUE OF
PREFERRED SHARES

    


    IT WAS NOTED THAT as
consideration for the acquisition of all of the allotted and issued equity
shares of GPC held by Apollo Enterprises International, Inc., (“Apollo”) the
Documents called for the allotment and issuance of the Preferred Shares set
forth above to APOLLO.

    


    IT WAS RESOLVED on
consummation of the Transaction, an aggregate of 98,885.4 Preferred Shares with
the rights set out above shall be allotted and issued to Apollo pursuant to the
terms of the Documents.
# C_2008022EN.01001802.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/18

---

Order of the Court of 25 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case C-495/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Staff report - Decision establishing the definitive version of the report - Decision to promote another official to the grade of Translator-reviser - Claim for compensation for damage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2008/C 22/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed — in so far as it relied on grounds other than a failure to give reasons — the action seeking, first, annulment of the decision establishing the definitive version of the appellant's staff report for the 2003 reporting period, the decision allocating the appellant merit points for the 2003 reporting period and the decision not to promote him in 2004, and of the decision rejecting the complaint brought against those decisions and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm suffered

Bart Nijs

Court of Auditors

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nijs to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nijs to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,468]


Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Brookfield Plant Brookfield, 
WI; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated August 24, 2005, a State of Wisconsin agency 
representative requested administrative reconsideration of the 
Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to 
workers of the subject firm. The determination was signed on July 18, 
2005, and published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 
50411).
    The determination stated that electric power tool accessory 
production at the subject facility ceased in December 2004, that 
production shifted to other domestic locations, that the subject 
company imported during 2003 and 2004, and that subject company 
customers did not import during the relevant period.
    The State agent requested reconsideration to clarify the basis for 
the negative determination.
    Upon careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department has determined that there is basis to conduct further 
investigation to determine whether the subject workers are eligible to 
apply for worker adjustment assistance.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-18544 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
# CE2004078EN.01041101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/411

---

(2004/C 78 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2649/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Comparison of electricity network tariffs in the Commission's second benchmarking report

Subject:

The Commission's ‘Second benchmarking report on the implementation of the internal electricity and gas market’ (Brussels, 7 April 2003) shows the differing rates of progress towards liberalisation in the individual Member States.

The report is available on the following Internet site: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/electricity/ benchmarking/doc/2/sec_2003_448_en.pdf).

Table 1 ‘Implementation of the Electricity Directive’ on page 4 of the report (column headed ‘Overall network tariffs’) reveals that Austria, Germany and Luxembourg have above-average network tariffs.

What data and/or studies were used as the basis for ascertaining the level of network tariffs?

Who supplied the data?

On what consumption indicators and parameters is the analysis based?

How was European comparability ensured (differences in pattern of consumption, security of supply, topology, etc.)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

(13 October 2003)

The study was based on information submitted by national Ministries and electricity and gas regulatory authorities. In some cases analysis from industry associations was used, for example the ‘Verband der Elektrizitätswirtschaft’ (VdEW) and ‘Verband der Netzbetreiber’ (VdN) in Germany. This is explained in more detail in Section 2 of the Annex to the document.

Standard customer types based on the price information collected by Eurostat were used, in particular:

| — | large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

large industrial user 24 Gigawatt hour (GWh) per year;

| — | small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year; |
| --- | --- |

—

small commercial user 50 Megawatt hour (MWh) per year;

| — | domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year. |
| --- | --- |

—

domestic user 3500 Kilowatt (KWh) per year.

The three Member States mentioned by the Honourable Member have above average network tariffs for the customer types used.

Generally speaking, it is considered that national regulators are best placed to make the final decision on the appropriateness or otherwise of network access charges. It is true that topology may explain some differences but the other factors identified (security of supply, consumption patterns) are not so different on an individual Member State basis. As noted in the report, the lack of effective regulation in certain Member States and an inadequate level of unbundling are also likely explanations of these differences.

---
LAMAR OCI SOUTH CORPORATION, d/b/a Lamar Advertising of Asheville v. STANLY COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and Stanly County.

No. 485A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Robert C. Stephens, Charlotte, Mark R. Kutny, Joshua J. Morton, Jr., for Stanly County, et al.

Craig D. Justus, Asheville, for Lamar OCI South Corp.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 650 S.E.2d 37.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of October 2007 by Petitioner 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."

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).
1477.

#### Jamison *v.*The State.

Accusation of larceny, from city court of Floyd county — Judge Hamilton. October 28, 1908.

Argued November 23,

Decided December 8, 1908.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. PL. Ennis, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

In a criminal ease where the evidence relied upon by the State was entirely circumstantial and without probative value, because consistent with innocence and not exclusive of every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, a conviction was unauthorized, and a new trial should have been granted. *Judgment reversed.*

Powell, J.,

dissenting. I think the evidence is amply conclusive to justify the conviction.
----

(2004/C 65 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2684/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   The problems of gypsies in Greece

In Greece gypsies face problems relating to social and economic exclusion and accommodation. As part of the operational programme ‘Combating exclusion from the labour market’ within the second Community support framework for Greece, projects were implemented which included actions aiming to combat the problems of gypsies, such as basic training (including combating illiteracy), training, the promotion of employment and the provision of accompanying and support services.

Can the Commission provide data to evaluate, in terms of actual content, the above-mentioned operational programme in the second Community support framework? Have any actions been planned in the third Community support framework to combat the problems of gypsies? If so, in which operational programmes and with what level of expenditure? What progress has been made to date with such actions?

Answer given Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, actions specifically targeting gypsies funded under the second and third Community Support Frameworks (CSF II and III) are as follows:

----