alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of North Carolina v. David Martin Beasley Young

No. 80A14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 28, 2016.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Young, David Martin Beasley.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

*ORDER*

The Court, on its own motion, orders that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the effect of *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , No. 14-280, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016, revised Jan. 27, 2016), on the proceedings in this case. The State's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days after the date of this order, and defendant's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days following the State's filing.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 28thday of January, 2016.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERIKA BARSALIA MATOS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2678

[March 9, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Nicole Menz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 31-2022-CT004499A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SNIPES v. BRITTHAVEN, INC., et al.

332P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 7, 2016

Scott Lewis, Attorney at Law, Pamela Renee Lawrence, Wilmington, for Britthaven, Inc., et al.

Gary K. Shipman, Attorney at Law, Kyle J. Nutt, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Snipes, Sandra D. et al.

Joseph Williford, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for McQueen, Fred (Jr.)(M.D.)

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of September 2016 by Defendants (Britthaven, Inc., Principle Long Term Care, Inc. and Spruce LTC Group, LLC d/b/a Richmond Pines Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of September 2016."
In the Matter of: E.D.D-A., R.R.D-A.

No. COA16-280

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
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 September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Jenifer Osterwalder, 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/
        Jenifer
        Osterwalder*
 Jenifer
        Osterwalder
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Duly
        Authorized Officer and Principal
 Financial
        and Accounting Officer
 
 *Date:
        November 10, 2006*
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
     In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofSouthCrest Financial Group, Inc. (the “ Company “) for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004 (the “ Periodic Report “), the undersigned Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, to the best of his individual knowledge and belief, that thePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained inthe Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: November 15, 2004 /s/ Larry T. Kuglar   Larry T. Kuglar   Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY and

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH

SCIENCES CENTER,

 Appellant,

v.

NYDIA D. GILBERT,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-08-00179-CV

Appeal from

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2007-1011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). The heading on Appellants’ motion is “Appellants’ Unopposed Motion

to Dismiss Appeal for Mootness.” However, the body of the motion requests dismissal pursuant to

Rule 42.1(a)(1), and as pointed out by Appellee, the motion itself does not request dismissal due to

mootness nor does it describe the events rendering the appeal moot. We therefore construe

Appellants’ motion as being a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) but not on the ground

of mootness. With that understanding, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs are taxed

against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

September 24, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

Chew, C.J., not participating
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THE
COMPANY'S  INCOME  STATEMENT AND BALANCE  SHEET DATED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,762
<PP&E>                                           1,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,877
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,645
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,831
<SALES>                                         15,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,651
<CGS>                                            9,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,767
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (32)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.63)

        

</TABLE>
United Community Bank (Georgia) v. Thomas L. Wolfe and Barbara J. Wolfe, Trustees of the Thomas L. Wolfe and Barbara J. Wolfe Irrevocable Trust, Thomas L. Wolfe, Individually and Barbara J. Wolfe, Individually

No. 289PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

*316Donald H. Barton, Attorney at Law, Brevard, Asheville, for Wolfe, Thomas L., et al

Esther E. Manheimer, Attorney at Law, Robert Ashley Mays, Attorney at Law, Mark A. Pinkston, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for United Community Bank (Georgia).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of August 2015 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

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).

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 19th day of August 2016.
Exhibit 10.25


 


	
  To: Lantheus Medical Imaging

  	
   

  	
  October 19, 2008

  



 


Subject: Larry G Pickering, Executive Chairman Compensation


 


This letter serves as an amendment to the employment contract which is
effective Jan 8, 2008.


 


Effective January 1, 2009 my base salary will be reduced from the
$500,000. annually to $400,000. All other terms of the agreement will remain
the same until modified in the future.


 




	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Larry G Pickering

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Larry G Pickering

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Executive Chairman, Lantheus Medical Imaging

  






 


 


	
  Cc:

  	
  David Burgstahler, Avista Capital

  
	
   

  	
  Michael Duffy, Legal Counsel

  
	
   

  	
  Bob Gaffey, CFO
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

      ( print page 5452)    
Notice is hereby given that, under the authority vested in me by the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, I have redelegated to the Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, with the authority to further redelegate to the Director, Family Youth Services Bureau, the authority to approve/disapprove cooperative research or demonstration projects under Section 1110 of the Social Security Act, and as amended hereafter, when such projects pertain to the abstinence education activities referenced in Public Law 108-447 at Title II, Division F.

This delegation excludes the authority to submit reports to Congress. Further, this delegation shall be exercised under the Department's existing delegation and policy on regulations and under financial and administrative requirements applicable to all Administration for Children and Families authorities. In addition, where all or part of any research or demonstration project is wholly financed with Federal funds made available under section 1110 of the Social Security Act, without any State, local, or other non-Federal financial participation, that project must be approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I have ratified any actions taken by the Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, or any other Administration on Children, Youth and Families officials, which, in effect, involved the exercise of this authority prior to the effective date of this delegation. This delegation was effective on the date of signature.

Dated: January 21, 2005.

Wade F. Horn,

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

[FR Doc. 05-1896 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3934 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3934

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
               increased aviation security service fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2014

   Ms. Gabbard (for herself, Ms. Hanabusa, and Mr. Young of Alaska) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to exempt certain flights from 
               increased aviation security service fees.

    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 ``Passenger Fee Restructuring 
Exemptions Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO RESTRUCTURING OF PASSENGER FEE.

    (a) In General.--Section 44940(c) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Fees imposed'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), 
        fees imposed''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Exceptions.--Fees imposed under subsection (a)(1) may 
        not exceed $2.50 per enplanement, and the total amount of such 
        fees may not exceed $5.00 per one-way trip, for passengers--
                    ``(A) boarding to an eligible place under 
                subchapter II of chapter 417 for which essential air 
                service compensation is paid under that subchapter; or
                    ``(B) on flights, including flight segments, 
                between 2 or more points in Hawaii or 2 or more points 
                in Alaska.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 601(d) of the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of 2013 is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 
inserting ``, as modified by the amendments made by section 2 of the 
Passenger Fee Restructuring Exemptions Act of 2014'' after ``subsection 
(b)''.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004070EN.01015902.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/159 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/159

---

(2004/C 70 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Safeguarding jobs at the Alcatel plant in Rieti

Subject:

The telecommunications sector is going through a period of recession. In order to tackle the unfavourable situation the Alcatel group has decided on drastic job cuts. Apart from undermining the research sector this policy also threatens to lead to the company's activities being relocated to countries with low labour costs.

If they go ahead, Alcatel's restructuring plans will hit Alcatel's factories in southern Italy, in particular the ultramodern establishment in Rieti.

Is the Commission aware of the risks for the economy of the Rieti area, where substantial resources have been invested in electronics?

Since Alcatel's situation is improving, what steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent a temporary difficulty from seriously damaging employment?

How does the Commission intend to safeguard plants such as the one at Rieti, which are considered of strategic importance because of the highly specialised professional staff and equipment?

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130476-77 & (69)(71) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

PATRICK PAPALAS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130476-77 

 COA: 252527 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices Wayne CC: 00-034152-NO

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ 

Cross Plaintiff-Appellee,

and 

METRO INDUSTRIAL PIPING, INC.,

 Defendant/

 Cross-Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

WALBRIDGE ALDINGER COMPANY, 

 Defendant/Cross-Defendant, 

and 

ROUGE STEEL COMPANY, DETROIT 

EDISON COMPANY, and COMMERCIAL 

CONTRACTING COMPANY, 

 Defendants, 

and 

METRO INDUSTRIAL PAINTING, INC.,

 Third-Party Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motions for miscellaneous relief are GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should now be reviewed by this Court. 

t0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
# C_2009032EN.01000801.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-407/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13A(1)(f) - Exemptions - Conditions - Services supplied by independent groups - Services supplied to one or several members of the group)

(2009/C 32/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13.A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Services supplied by independent associations for the purpose of providing their members with services which are directly necessary for the exercise of an exempted activity

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other conditions in that provision are met, services supplied to their members by independent groups are covered by the exemption contained in that provision, even if those services are supplied only to one or several of those members.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-09333, No. 333-09335, No. 33-81146 and No. 33-98176) of PC
Service Source, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of PC Service Source, Inc. and
subsidiaries at December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for the years then ended included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2000
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 – Dorel Juvenile Group v OHIM (SAFETY 1ST)**

**(Case T-88/06)**

Community trade mark − Application for the Community word mark SAFETY 1ST – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 35, 38-39, 44)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 616/2004-2) relating to an application for registration of the word mark SAFETY 1 | ST | as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark SAFETY 1ST designating goods in Classes 12, 20, 21 and 28 – Application No 2258697 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Dismissal of application |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. to pay the costs. |
Exhibit
10.33


CKE
Restaurants, Inc.




Amendment
No. 4


To


Employment
Agreement




This
Amendment No. 4 (the “Amendment”) to
Employment Agreement is made effective as of January 26, 2010, by and between
CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) and Brad R.
Haley (the “Employee”).




RECITALS:




A.  The
Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of
January 2004, and amended on December 6, 2005, March 20, 2007 and December 16,
2008 (the “Agreement”).




B.  The
Company and Employee now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
below.






AGREEMENT




1.  Other Compensation and
Fringe Benefits.  Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to extend the bonus provided for therein to fiscal year
2011.




2.  Definitions.  Terms
used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement.




3.  Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one
Amendment.




4.  Terms and Conditions of
Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment,
all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.






[Signature
Page Follows]










IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the undersigned as of the date
first written above.





/s/ Brad R.
      HaleyBrad R.
    Haley
 
  CKE Restaurants,
      Inc.By:
              /s/ Andrew F.
      PuzderAndrew F.
      Puzder,Chief Executive
      Officer