alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6777** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. THOMAS LEE BRINCEFIELD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:03

- cr - 00346

- JAB

- 1; 1:11

- cv - 00013

- JAB

JEP )

Submitted : November 17 , 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Thomas Brincefield, Appellant Pro Se. John Mcrae Alsup, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpub lished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Lee Brincefield appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) moti on . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012) . The magistrate judge recommended th at the motion be granted in part and denied in part and advised Brincefield that failure to file timely object ions to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Brincefield has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly , we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# C_2008128EN.01002803.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-314/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/58)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Knewtrino, Inc. (the "Company"),
        on Form
        10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Vladimir Fedyunin , President and Chief
        Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as added by Section 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;
                  and
 
 2.
              To
                  my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                  of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
                  Report.
 
  */s/
        Vladimir Fedyunin*
 Vladimir
        Fedyunin
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Duly
        Authorized Officer and Principal
 Financial
        and Accounting Officer
 
 *Date:* May
        8,
        2007
<PAGE>

                                  [TRANSLATION]

Bank Discount Le-Israel B.M.
Business Division
27 Yehuda Halevy St.
Tel Aviv, 65136
Tel - 03-5145727
Fax - 03-5145333

August 12, 2002

Ref: 250474

          To: Tefron Ltd.
          ---------------


          Re: Your Obligation Towards Us as of December 14, 1999
          ------------------------------------------------------

In respect of your obligation mentioned above, which was corrected on May 18,
2000, March 3, 2001 and November 13, 2001 (hereinafter: "Letter of Obligation"),
we hereby notify you that we agree to the correction of the above mentioned
Obligation as set forth below:

Commencing with the financial statements as of June 30, 2002 and until the
financial statements as of June 30, 2003 (excluded), we hereby agree that your
shareholders equity will not be less than 20% of your total assets, and that the
aggregate shareholders equity will not be less than U.S. $40,000,000 (forty
million United States Dollars).

These terms will be interpreted in accordance with customary accounting
principles. Except as provided above, there will not be any change in the above
mentioned Letter of Obligation. Commencing with the financial statements as of
June 30, 2003, the provisions of the Obligation dated December 14, 1999 shall
apply.


Respectfully,

/s/ Moshe Trauwich
------------------

Bank Discount Le-Israel B.M.
Business Division
Moshe Trauwich
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1004

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Bryan S. Behrens

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: September 2, 2014

 Filed: September 5, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Bryan Behrens, whose sentence on a securities-fraud conviction we affirmed,

see United States v. Behrens, 713 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2013), appeals the district
court’s order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his

1

motion, Behrens claimed his criminal conviction was void based on an alleged lack

of subject matter jurisdiction in light of an order entered in a prior civil proceeding. 

He also claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. Because

Behren’s subject-matter-jurisdiction and related ineffective-assistance claims are

meritless, see United States v. White Horse, 316 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2003)

(subject matter jurisdiction established by 18 U.S.C. § 3231); Rodriguez v. United

States, 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (counsel’s failure to advance

meritless argument cannot constitute ineffective assistance), we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Nebraska.

-2-
EXHIBIT 23.1







      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



      We hereby consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-79720,  33-79722,  33-79772, 33-94772, 33-94768,
333-05613,  333- 05615) and the Preliminary  Proxy Statement (No.  000-23776) of
HemaSure  Inc.  of our report  dated March 20,  2001  relating to the  financial
statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                             /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2001
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135949 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

ROSELYN KOHLER,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

v SC: 135949 Justices 

 COA: 278363 

WCAC: 04-000323 

MERCY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the prior decisions of the worker’s compensation 

tribunals and we REMAND this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new hearing and a 

decision consistent with this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 

(2008). The plaintiff’s current entitlement to benefits shall continue until a new decision 

is issued by the Board. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order vacating the decisions of the workers’ compensation 

tribunals and remanding this case to the Board of Magistrates for a new hearing and a 

decision consistent with this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 

(2008). 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, I vote to 

grant leave to appeal in this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the 

correct decision in Stokes. 

0923 

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 26, 2008 

Clerk
# C_2008247EN.01001102.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/11

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Klagenfurt — Austria) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-315/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 247/20)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-33949) of Renal Care Group, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus and Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37299) pertaining to
the Renal Care Group, Inc. Third Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan
of our reports dated March 5, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Nashville, Tennessee
March 30, 1998
Exhibit 10.6


 


April 22, 2014


 


Mr. Fredric Price


64 Quarry Lane


Bedford, New York 10506


U.S.A.


 


Dear Fred,


 


Re: Engagement Letter - Post-IPO Compensation
Terms 


 


Reference is hereby made to your engagement
letter with Bio Blast Pharma Ltd. (the "Company") as the Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors dated April
24, 2012 ("Engagement Letter").


 


		1.	As of the date hereof and following the closing of an initial public offering of the Company's
shares on NASDAQ ("IPO"), you will assume an active role in you position as chairman of the Company. Such active
role shall include contributing from your skills, experience and networking for the strategic development of the Company, including
participating in the road show prior to the IPO together with Company's management as will be coordinated with you in advance,
assisting the Company with the relationship with the Company's investors, promoting and assisting in transactions with major customers,
partnerships or other strategic transactions and developments in the Company's business.



		2.	In consideration for your active role as chairman of the Company, upon the closing of the IPO,
you will be entitled to the following compensation terms effective as of the closing of the IPO:



 


		2.1	The compensation for your services as the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall be US$120,000
per annum, payable monthly, commencing as of the closing of the IPO.



 


		2.2	The Company shall issue to you as of the closing of the IPO, 206,702 options to purchase Ordinary
Shares of the Company at an exercise price equal the price per share determined on the IPO. The vesting commencement date shall
be the date of closing of the IPO. The vesting schedule of the Options and all other terms not set forth shall be in accordance
with the Company's option plan. Following such grant of options, you shall hold Options to purchase 4.5% of the Company's share
capital on a fully diluted basis as of the date hereof.



 


		3.	Notwithstanding the provisions of the Engagement Letter, you hereby agree that your right to participate
in future financing rounds as set forth in Section 4 of your engagement letter shall expire immediately prior to the IPO.



 


		4.	All other provisions of the Engagement Letter shall continue in full force and effect with the
necessary changes resulting from this change.



 


Please indicate your acceptance to the
terms of this letter by signing and dating this letter and returning a counterpart hereof to us.


 


	 	Sincerely yours,
	 	/s/ Ehud Gilboa
	 	Bio Blast Pharma Ltd.


 


I agree to all terms of this letter.


 


Date: April 22, 2014


	Signature: 	/s/ Fredric Price
1505.

#### McNeal *v.*The State.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city court of! Swainsboro — Judge Mitchell. October 1, 1908.

*Sajfold ■& Larsen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Henry B. Daniel, solicitor, Williams & Bradley,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The assignments of error, as to the judgment overruling the-challenge to the array of jurors, and as to the charge of the court on the subject of reasonable doubt, are fully controlled by the decision of' this court (this day rendered) in the case of *Governor*v. *State,*ante, 357 (63 S. E. 241.)

2. No other error of law is complained of than the two above noted, and the verdict is amply supported by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*
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 *10Law, 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 Counsel, 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, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, 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, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, 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 State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper 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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,594,877
<SECURITIES>                                40,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              216,272,051
<ALLOWANCES>                                59,796,488
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           228,356,136
<PP&E>                                      46,497,830
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,358,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             577,270,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      240,434,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        49,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 143,468,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               577,270,277
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           440,318,613
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              313,706,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           137,201,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (5,127,244)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (15,716,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (15,716,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (15,716,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2023205EN.01002802.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku (Poland) lodged on 10 March 2023 — XL v Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

(Case C-146/23, Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku)

(2023/C 205/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: XL

Defendant: Sąd Rejonowy w Białymstoku

Question referred

Should Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which defines the values on which the European Union is based with regard to respect for the rule of law, and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which requires Member States to ensure effective legal protection, which is based on the right to a fair and public hearing, be interpreted as meaning that the principle of judicial independence precludes provisions of national legislation which, for the purpose of limiting government spending, waives a mechanism for setting judges’ pay on the basis of objective criteria that are independent of arbitrary interference by the executive and legislative authorities, resulting in sustained cuts to the pay of judges, thereby infringing the constitutional guarantees by which judges are granted remuneration consistent with the dignity of their office and the scope of their duties and the administration of justice is carried out by independent courts and independent judges?

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 16, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136867 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136867 

 COA: 285309 

Kent CC: 05-011461-FH 

GEORGE MARTIN VANDENBERG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 6, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on 

leave granted of the substantive issues contained in Issues IV and V in the application 

previously filed in the Court of Appeals in this case. Issues IV and V are to be heard with 

the sentencing issues on which the Court of Appeals has already granted the defendant’s 

application for leave to appeal. In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

l0915 

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 16, 2008 

 Clerk
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0440. WILLIE JAMES MAYS v. THE STATE.

In September 2010, Willie James Mays entered a negotiated guilty plea to

burglary and was sentenced 20 years with the first 5 years to serve in confinement.

We affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mays’s motion to withdraw his plea and

requestfor an out-of-time appeal in an unpublished opinion. See Mays v. State, Case

No. A12A0534 (decided May 18, 2012). In May 2018, the entirety of Mays’s

probation was revoked. In July 2018, Mays filed a pro se “Motion to Correct Void

Sentence,” in which he challenged the revocation of his probation. The trial court

denied his motion, and Mays filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Because the underlying subject matter of Mays’s appeal is the revocation of his

probation, he was required to file an application for discretionary appeal to obtain

review in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269,

269 n. 2 (745 SE2d 1) (2013); Zamora v. State, 226 Ga. App. 105, 105 (485 SE2d

214) (1997). His failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 24, 2018

10/24/2018