alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Larry J. EDWARDS.

No. 82P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Larry J. Edwards, Norlina, for Edwards, Larry J.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of March 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

ERVIN, J. recused.
STATE v. Jose Ismael-Ruiz ZUNIGA

292P13-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Jose Ismael-Ruiz Zuniga, for Zuniga, Jose Ismael-Ruiz.

*243The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of July 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Writ of Error:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136699 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: 136699 

 COA: 276207 

Washtenaw CC: 06-000336-FC 

NORMAN TERRY REITMEYER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 24, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK LEON ANDREWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00208-D-1; 5:23-cv-00263-D)

Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: May 24, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Leon Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Leon Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Andrews’ informal brief,

we conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; 

under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); see 

also Hicks v. Ferreyra, 965 F.3d 302, 310 (4th Cir. 2020) (stating “this court does not 

consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances”

(cleaned up)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6021 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
# C_2010011EN.01002202.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1000)

(Case T-298/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark 1000 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 11/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2006 (Case R 447/2006-4), relating to the application for registration of the word mark 1000 as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

William T. Johnstone, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

William T. Johnstone,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-18900  Filed 9-16-05; 4:31 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50063

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL DE LA CRUZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-88-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul De La Cruz appeals his 48-month sentence following his guilty plea

to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first

time on appeal, De La Cruz argues thatthe district court erroneously calculated

his criminal history score by applying two criminal history points under U.S.S.G.

§ 4A1.1(e) because the instant offense was committed within two years from his

release from custody for a 1999 sexual-assault-of-a-child conviction. He asserts

that he was placed on deferred adjudication probation and was never actually

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 12, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50063

2

in custody and that, in any event, he was discharged from probation more than

two years before the instant offense.

As De La Cruz correctly concedes, because he did not object in the district

court, review is limited to the plain error standard. See United States v. ArvisoMata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the plain error standard, the

appellant must show that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious;

and (3) the error affects his substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 731-37 (1993). If these factors are established, the decision to correct the

forfeited error is within the sound discretion of the court, and the court will not

exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity,

or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 735-36.

The district court calculated De La Cruz’s guidelines sentencing range as

46 to 57 months. Although De La Cruz asserts that the district court

miscalculated his criminal history points, he concedes that the district court

nevertheless arrived at the appropriate criminal history category and that his

guidelines sentencing range was thus unaffected by this miscalculation. The

district court sentenced De La Cruz within a properly calculated guidelines

sentencing range. De La Cruz has not met his burden of showing that his

substantial rights were affected by the district court’s calculation of his criminal

history points. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-121393, No. 333-110581, and No. 333-114760 and Forms S-8 No. 033-79720, No. 033-79722, No. 033-94768, No. 333-05613, No. 333-05615 and No. 333-109767) of Point Therapeutics, Inc. and in therelated Prospectus of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Point Therapeutics, Inc., Point Therapeutics, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Point Therapeutics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/    Ernst & Young LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 10, 2006
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

      In connection with the Annual Report of Viewpoint Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William H. Mitchell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

|        | (1) |      | The Report to which this certification is attached as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: March 16, 2005           |                                  | By: | /s/ WILLIAM H. MITCHELLWilliam H. MitchellChief Financial Officer |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
Thomas T. DILLARD, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Cynthia VESTER and Michael Vester, Defendants.

No. COA15-1135.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
7th Level, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 333-10335, 333-10339, 333-65525, 033-87944 and 333-10341) and on Form S-3
(No. 333-64365) of 7th Level, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 1998, related
to the consolidated balance sheet of 7th Level, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the two year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the
December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K/A of 7th Level, Inc.

Our report dated January 30, 1998 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses since inception and does not
currently have sufficient resources to meet its anticipated operating
requirements during 1998, which conditions raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.





                                    KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 30, 1999
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, James Meyer, the chairman,
      president, and chief executive officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:





(i) the
      Annual
      Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








By:
            /s/
                BILL JOLLBill
                Joll*President
                and**Chief
                Executive Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*





March
      23,
      2007
Exhibit 10.24

 

Contract p30 - CCV

 

AMENDMENT No.1 TO THE LOGISTICAL SERVICES CONTRACT

 

Between

 

The company Cdiscount, SA with a capital of €5,162,154.62, the head office of which is at 120-126 Quai de Barcalan, 33000 Bordeaux, registered under the number 424 059 822 in the commerce and company register of Bordeaux, duly represented by Mr. Pierre-Yves ESCARPIT, Supply Chain Director,

 

	
 
    	
Hereafter “Cdiscount”;
    


 

And

 

The company CCV, SNC with a capital of €2,500,000.00, the head office of which is located at 1 Esplanade de France, 42000 Saint Etienne, registered under the number 501 655 245 in the Commerce and Companies Register of Saint Etienne, duly represented by Mr. Jean ULRICH, General Director

 

	
 
    	
Hereafter the “CCV”;
    


 

Hereafter referred to individually as the “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

 

PREAMBLE

 

The Parties concluded a logistical services contract (hereafter the “Contract”) on the 1st March 2013 as well as an amendment no.2 from the 16th May 2014 extending the services to “COLLECTION POINT” services.

 

The Parties wish to modify certain conditions of the Contract.

 

THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING:

 

Article 1

 

Article 3 of the contract is deleted and replaced as follows:

 

“3. Duration

 

The Contract takes effect on 01/01/2013 for a fixed duration of 10 years.

 

It is tacitly renewed at the end for periods of the same duration, except if a cancellation is announced by one of the Parties before the end, via notification by Registered Letter with proof of delivery to the other Party respecting the notification period of two years.”

 

Article 2

 

This amendment enters into force as soon as it is signed.

 

Article 3

 

All the other conditions of the Contract remain in force and unchanged.

 

Established on the 16th May 2014 in Bordeaux

 

 

	
FOR CDISCOUNT
    	
FOR CCV
    
	
[signature]
    	
 
    	
[signature]
    
	
Pierre-Yves ESCARPIT
    	
 
    	
Jean ULRICH
    
	
Supply Chain Director
    	
 
    	
General Director
    


 

1
Order filed, May 22, 2015

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

____________ NO. 01

- 15

- 00358

- CR
BOBBY JOE JONES, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal f

rom the 22nd District Court Hays County, Texas Trial Court Case CR

- 13

- 0430



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due May 11, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The
record has not be en filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal
, if any, within 30 days of the date of this order

.

/s/ Rebeca Huddle Acting individually
# C_2008313EN.01005601.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/56

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 — Lafili v Commission

(Case F-22/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Entry into force of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations - Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion - Grading - Multiplication factor)

(2008/C 313/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, H. Kraemer and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision to place the applicant in Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a memorandum from DG ADMIN of 11 May 2006 and in the pay slip of June 2006 and in subsequent pay slips, inasmuch as that the decision infringes, inter alia, Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Article 7 of Annex XIII to those regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Head of Unit A 6 ‘Career structure, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 May 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Head of Unit A 6 ‘Career structure, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 May 2006;

| 2. | Orders Mr Lafili to bear half his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Lafili to bear half his own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of Mr Lafili's costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of Mr Lafili's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 59.

1

---
Exhibit 31.3


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, R. Neal Black, certify that:





|   |                                                                                     
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.;




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.







Date:May 9, 2014/s/ R. Neal BlackR. Neal BlackPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
exv10wpwii






EXHIBIT 10(p)(ii)




Citicorp USA, Inc.,
 As
agent

1615 Brett Rd.

New Castle, Delaware 19720




Re: Becton, Dickenson and Company

1,000,000,000.00 USD Revolving credit




Ladies and Gentlemen,




          As of November 14, 2007 Becton, Dickenson and Company has extended the 1 Billion dollar
revolving credit line to December 1, 2012. All lenders in the group have agreed to the extension by
signing and returning the required notice.




Thank you,




Mark Rosenthal

Securities Analyst

Citicorp USA

1615 Brett Rd

New Castle, Delaware 19720
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Nevsun Resources Ltd.



We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

─

our auditors' report dated March 16, 2007 on the consolidated balance sheets of Nevsun Resources Ltd. ("the Company") as at December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years then ended.

─

our auditors' report on reconciliation to United States generally accepted accounting principles dated March 16, 2007

each of which is incorporated by referenceinthis annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.





KPMGLLP



Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

March 30, 2007
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT HENRY D. BRIODY, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES,

DIVISION OF LICENSING,

Appellee. No. 2D21-644 September 24, 2021 Appeal from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing. Henry D. Briody, pro se. Michael T. McGuckin, Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur.2

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.