alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ervin RAINEY, Employee v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Employer, and Self-insured, Carrier

No. 231P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Vernon Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Rainey, Ervin.

Mark T. Sumwalt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

Lauren H. Walker, Attorney at Law.

Lawrence J. Goldman, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for City of Charlotte, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th of June 2016 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN OROZCO, 

Petitioner, No. 06-75021

v. Agency No. 

M A077-981-235 ICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney

General, ORDER

Respondent. 

Filed October 20, 2008

Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Carlos T. Bea, and

N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The Joint Motion to Vacate and Motion to Dismiss Voluntarily is hereby GRANTED. The published opinion in Orozco

v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2008), is hereby vacated.

The case is also hereby dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure Rule 42(b). This order served on the agency

shall, 21 days after the date of this order, become the mandate

of this court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

14577
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          164556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      609
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                165165
<PP&E>                                           13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  172437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            51698
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1785669
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1664930)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    172437
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   865
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 76542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (75677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (75677)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (75677)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CHRIST EUGENE HARSH,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 827 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Ronald G. Keaton, Jr., Employee v. ERMC III, Employer, New Hampshire Insurance Company, Carrier (Carl Warren & Company, Third-Party Administrator

No. 262P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Mr. Joseph D. Delfino, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, For ERMC III, et al.

Ms. Shannon Warf Wilson, Attorney at Law, For Keaton, Ronald G. (Jr.).

***ORDER***

Ervin, J.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of July 2016 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 12th of July 2016 for Writ *335of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of August 2016 by Defendants to Hold Petition for Discretionary Review in Abeyance:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Crystal WHICKER, Employee v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC./Crothall Services Group, Employer, Self-insured (Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Administrator); and Novant Health, Inc., Alleged Joint Employer, Self-insured

No. 172P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

*229Michael F. Roessler, Attorney at Law, for Whicker, Crystal.

Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Compass Group USA, Inc., et al.

Jeffrey T. Linder, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Barbara E. Ruark, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Novant Health, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of May 2016 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
# C_2010024EN.01004701.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/47

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — Esber v OHIM — Coloris Global Coloring Concept (COLORIS)

(Case T-353/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark COLORIS - Earlier national word mark COLORIS - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 24/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Esber, SA (Burceña-Baracaldo, Spain) (represented by: T. Villate Consonni, J. Calderón Chavero and M. Yañez Manglano, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Coloris Global Coloring Concept (Villeneuve Loubet, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 1060/2006-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Coloris Global Coloring Concept and Esber, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Esber, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Esber, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3993 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3993

To provide for a 15 percent reduction in the rates of pay of Members of 
 Congress for pay periods occurring during a year if a Federal budget 
          deficit existed during the most recent fiscal year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2014

Mr. Bentivolio (for himself and Mr. Benishek) introduced the following 
bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and 
in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a 15 percent reduction in the rates of pay of Members of 
 Congress for pay periods occurring during a year if a Federal budget 
          deficit existed during the most recent fiscal year.

    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 ``Spending Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IF BUDGET DEFICIT 
              EXISTED AT END OF PREVIOUS YEAR.

    (a) In General.--Section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(C) If the total outlays of the Government during a fiscal year 
exceed the total revenues of the Government during that fiscal year, as 
determined by the Congressional Budget Office--
            ``(i) each annual rate of pay referred to in paragraph (1) 
        shall be reduced by 15 percent for all pay periods occurring 
        during the next calendar year which begins after that fiscal 
        year; and
            ``(ii) no adjustment may be made under subparagraph (A) in 
        any such rate of pay during that next calendar year.''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 601(a)(2)(A) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``Subject to subparagraph (B),'' and inserting 
``Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C),''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to fiscal year 2014 and each succeeding fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered February 14, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01607
- CV BRUCE B. MCLEOD, III , Appellant
V. ALFRED GYR, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. CC
- 11
- 02708
- B 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s February 12, 2013 unopposed motion for second extension of time to file appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file his brief by February 26, 2013. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
# C_2009044EN.01001701.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Republic of Poland) — Magoora sp. zoo v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

(Case C-414/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2) and (6) - National legislation - Deduction of VAT on the purchase of fuel for certain vehicles irrespective of the purpose for which they are used - Effective restriction on deductions - Exclusions laid down by national law when the directive entered into force)

(2009/C 44/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magoora sp. zoo

Applicant:

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Krakowie — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (6) 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) — National rules excluding the right to deduct tax on purchases of fuel for certain vehicles irrespective of the purpose (business or private) for which the vehicle concerned is used — Amendment of the criteria governing vehicles covered by the exclusion, resulting in a de facto restriction of the scope of the right to deduct in comparison with the period before Directive 77/388 entered into force in the Member State concerned

de facto

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the 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 precludes a Member State from repealing in their entirety, when that directive is transposed into national law, national provisions concerning restrictions on the right to deduct input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable activity, by replacing, on the date on which that directive entered into force on its territory, those provisions by provisions laying down new criteria in that regard, if — which is for the national court to determine — the latter provisions have the effect of extending the scope of those restrictions. It precludes, in any event, a Member State from subsequently amending its legislation which entered into force on that date, so as to extend the scope of those restrictions as compared with the situation existing prior to that date.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3957 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3957

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2014

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 218-10 Merrick Boulevard in Springfield Gardens, New York, as the 
               ``Cynthia Jenkins Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CYNTHIA JENKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 218-10 Merrick Boulevard in Springfield Gardens, New York, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Cynthia Jenkins Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cynthia 
Jenkins Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2006 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other
securities law.

Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a), or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sensus Metering
Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.



|                      |  |                                                                           |  |                 |  |          |  |                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DANIEL W. HARNESS |  |                                                                           |  | /s/ PETER MAINZ
|Name:                 |  | Daniel W. Harness                                                         |  |                 |  | Name:    |  | Peter Mainz                                                              
|Title:                |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                                     |  |                 |  | Title:   |  | Chief Financial Officer                                                  
|Company:              |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd.
and Sensus Metering Systems Inc. |  |                 |  | Company: |  | Sensus Metering Systems (Bermuda 2) Ltd. and Sensus Metering Systems Inc.
|Date:                 |  | October 30, 2006                                                          |  |                 |  | Date:    |  | October 30, 2006
The KIMBERLEY RICE KAESTNER 1992 FAMILY TRUST v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

307PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 24, 2017

Peggy S. Vincent, Assistant Attorney General, Tenisha S. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Sawchak, Solicitor General, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Thomas D. Myrick, Attorney at Law, Neil T. Bloomfield, Attorney at Law, Kara N. Bitar, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of March 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of March 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 11th day of May 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# C_2008301EN.01006503.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/65

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-381/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/126)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2007 – Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret and Akar v Commission**

**(Case T-129/06)**

Action for annulment – Essential procedural requirements – Natural and legal persons required to be represented by a lawyer entitled to practise before a court of a Member State – Application in proper form lodged out-of-time – Inadmissibility of the action

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and
fourth paras, 21, second para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43(1) and 44(3))
(see paras 25-30)*

2.                     *Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Time barred – Excusable error – Definition (Statute of the Court of Justice,
Art. 21, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(6)) (see paras 31-44)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPLICATION for, first, annulment of Decision MK/KS/DELTUR/(2005)/SecE/D/1614 of 23 December 2005 concerning the award of a public works contract for the construction of educational establishments in the Provinces of Siirt and Diyarbakir (EuropeAid/121601/C/W/TR) and, second, suspension of the award procedure in question. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the applicants, Diy-Mar Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi and Musa Akar, to bear their own costs and, jointly and severally, pay the Commission’s costs. |
Order filed November 20, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00436

- CV

____________ JUAN ROMERO , Appellant

V.
STRESSFREE PROPERTY SOLUTIONS & THOMAS B ARKER, Appellee s

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1061296



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due November 16, 2015

. No brief or motion for
extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before December 18,
2015 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
State of North Carolina v. Titus Batts

No. 104P11-8

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Ernie Lee, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Titus Batts, Pro Per.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐341/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/48/EC – Enforcement of intellectual property rights – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see
para. 11)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations – Difficulties of interpretation
pleaded as justification – Not permissible (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 12)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, with corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs. |