alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Spoor v. Barth, et al.

42P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Spoor, Richard B.

Barry Nakell, Attorney at Law, For Spoor, Richard B.

Judson A. Welborn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Barth, John M.

J. Whitfield Gibson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Barth, John M.

N. Hunter Wyche, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Barth, John M.

Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, For Barth, John M.

Michael J. Small, Attorney at Law, For Barth, John M.

David B. Goroff, Attorney at Law, For Barth, John M.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Spoor, Richard B.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of February 2016 *442by Plaintiff to Strike Reply in Support of Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Ernest TILLERY, Plaintiff v. Ashley L. TILLERY, Jr.; Bettye T. Francis; Geraldine T. Miller; Priscilla T. Rascoe, Defendants.

No. COA15-506.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2009044EN.01007001.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Hristova v Commission

(Case F-50/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Recruitment - Open competition - Conditions for admission - Rejection of candidature - Statement of reasons - Diplomas)

(2009/C 44/120)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Valentina Hristova (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition on the ground that she did not have three years' professional experience in secretarial work after having obtained her diploma — Claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit Ms Hristova to the tests in that competition; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit Ms Hristova to the tests in that competition;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79 of 29.3.2008, p. 36.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐286/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 28 EC – Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States – Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is
registered as a dealer – Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owners

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 26, 28, 32, 35, 38-39, 43, 46-48, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle’s seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement – Obstacle to the free movement of goods – Lack of justification and proportionality. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

JENNIE WALSH

VERSUS

LANDMARK OF BATON ROUGE, 

LLC, DR. WILLIAM PATRICK

GAHAN, AND CORINNE K. 

ROULEAU

NO. 2022 CW 1262

MAY 17, 2023

In Re: Dr. William Gahan, applying for supervisory writs, 

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton

Rouge, No. 700506. 

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s September 26, 2022

judgment, which denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by

defendant, Dr. William Patrick Gahan, is reversed. After

conducting a cle novo reg lew, we find that Dr. Gahan has met his

burden of pointing out to the court the absence of factual

support for one or more elements essential to the plaintiffs' 

medical malpractice claims, as plaintiffs, Jennie Walsh

ndividUally and on behalf of_ her deceased mother, Genevieve

Brister, have failed to produce expert medical testimony in

support of them claims. S e La. R. S. 9: 2794; Samaha v. Rau, 

2007- 1. 726 ( La. 2/ 26/ 08) 1- 

977 So. 2d 880. We further find this is

not a case of obvious negligence that requires no expert

testimony to demonstrate the physician' s fault, and Dr. Gahan

has not testified as to the standard of care and his breach

thereof. , See e. g. Pfiffner v. Correa, 94- 0924 ( La. 10/ 17/ 94), 

643 So. 2d 1228, 1233- 34. Therefore, we find that plaintiffs

will be unable to satisfy their evidentiary burden of proof at

trial. Accordingly, the Motion for , Summary Judgment filed by

defendant, Dr. William Patrick Gahan., is granted, and the claims

of plaintiffs, Jenn4ie Walsh indiv;ldually and on behalf of her

deceased mother, Genevieve Brister, against defendant, Dr. 

William Patrick Gahan, are dismissed with prejudice. 

PMC

GH

HG

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DPU CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Michael Finley, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 30, 2016

**41ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on March 17, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). By order dated March 23, 2016, the Honorable Edward W. Miller was assigned exclusive jurisdiction over this matter. He has now recused himself from this case. Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4, **42IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Scott Sprouse be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Sprouse shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Sprouse shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
STATE v. Tony Robert JONES

669P03-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Tony Robert Jones, Pro Per.

Ms. Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Tom Horner, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of September 2016 by Defendant for Rehearing:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30222

Summary Calendar

ERIC DRAKE,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No: 3:12-CV-372

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Eric Drake appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal for frivolity

and lack of jurisdiction of his pro se action seeking declaratory and injunctive

relief against the United States. We AFFIRM.

In 1990, Drake pled guilty to a felony—the knowing production without

lawful authority of an identification document, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 16, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-30222 Document: 00512344512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2013
No. 13-30222

§ 1028(a)(1)—in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia. His complaint seeks a declaration that he nevertheless has “the right

to possess, ship, receive, and own firearms,” despite being a felon. Cf. 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g) (prohibiting felons from shipping or transporting firearms in interstate

commerce and receiving firearms transported in interstate or foreign

commerce). He claims that former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards

pardoned him for his offense, resulting in a full restoration of his civil rights.

As we have told Drake previously, see Drake v. United States, 249 F.

App’x 332, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), restoration of civil rights is a

matter “governed by the law of the convicting jurisdiction.” Beecham v. United

States, 511 U.S. 368, 371 (1994). His putative Louisiana pardon has no bearing

on the federal restrictions placed on him as a result of his federal conviction.

Relief from disabilities imposed by federal law related to firearms ownership

and possession is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 925(c), which requires application to

the Attorney General by those seeking such relief. Drake has made no such

application, and the federal courts therefore lack jurisdiction. See United

States v. Bean, 537 U.S. 71, 74 (2002).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment ofthe district court.

2

 Case: 13-30222 Document: 00512344512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2013
# C_2009019EN.01002701.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 — Avon Products OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)

(Case T-184/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 19/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: C. Heitmann-Lichtenstein and U. Stelzenmüller, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by S. Laitinen and P. Bullock, and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 March 2007 (Case R 1471/2006 2), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word mark ANEW ALTERNATIVE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Avon Products, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Avon Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3958 

To provide for a one-year extension of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

pilot program on assisted living services for veterans with traumatic 

brain injury. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a one-year extension of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs pilot program on assisted living services 

for veterans with traumatic brain injury. 

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 ‘‘Healing Our Heroes 

5 Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3958 IH

1 SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VET2 ERANS AFFAIRS PILOT PROGRAM ON AS3 SISTED LIVING SERVICES FOR VETERANS 

4 WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. 

5 Section 1705 of the National Defense Authorization 

6 Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 

7 491; 38 U.S.C. 1710C note) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘five-year pilot 

9 program’’ and inserting ‘‘six-year pilot program’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ‘‘the com12 pletion of the pilot program’’ and inserting ‘‘the date 

13 on which the pilot program has been carried out for 

14 five years’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAMELA
FREDETTE                         
|Pamela Fredette                                
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|                                               
|March 29, 2007
NIES v. TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 29, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, For Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General *13Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

Sam Hayes, Attorney at Law, David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Environmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Ahoskie, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, for County of Dare, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2016 by N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition and N.C. Vacation Rental Managers Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of July 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3973 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 280
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3973

                          [Report No. 113-376]

         To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2014

Mr. DeSantis (for himself, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Chabot, Mr. 
 Byrne, Mr. Salmon, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Weber of Texas, 
Mr. Posey, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Amodei, Mr. Massie, Mr. LaMalfa, 
    Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Duncan of South 
   Carolina, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. 
 Lankford, and Mr. Stutzman) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             March 7, 2014

  Additional sponsors: Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Bentivolio, Mr. 
 Holding, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Latta, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Neugebauer, 
Mr. Tipton, Mr. Kline, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. 
                       Sessions, and Ms. Jenkins

                             March 7, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code.

 

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 530D OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE.

    Section 530D(a)(1)(A) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or any other Federal officer'' before 
        ``establishes or implements a formal or informal policy''; and
            (2) in clause (i), by striking ``on the grounds that such 
        provision is unconstitutional'' and inserting ``and state the 
        grounds for such policy''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 280

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3973

                          [Report No. 113-376]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

         To amend section 530D of title 28, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 7, 2014

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```