alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NIKKI NICOLE THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:07-cr-00094-HMH-7)

Submitted: September 23, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Wade Richey, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.

David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nikki Thomas seeks to appeal her conviction and sentence.

The government has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In

criminal cases, the defendant must file a notice of appeal within

ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).

The district court may, upon a showing of excusable neglect, with

or without a motion for extension of time, extend the time for

filing a notice of appeal by thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b);

United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985).

In this case, the district court’s judgment was entered

on March 20, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the district court received

an undated letter from Thomas in which she stated her intent to

appeal. Under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the notice of

appeal is considered filed when it is given to prison officials for

mailing. Because it is not clear from the record whether Thomas’

appeal was timely noted, we remand the case to the district court

for a factual finding of when Thomas’ notice of appeal was given to

prison officials for mailing. Further, if the district court finds

that the notice of appeal was given to prison officials within the

excusable neglect period, the court should also determine whether

there was excusable neglect justifying Thomas’ delay in noting an

appeal. See Reyes, 759 F.2d at 353-54 (appeal may be remanded for

determination of excusable neglect when such neglect is not

apparent from the face of the record; motion for extension of time
3

to appeal not prerequisite to district court’s excusable neglect

determination in direct criminal appeal). The record, as

supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further

consideration.

REMANDED
State of North Carolina v. Thornell Chris Bennett

No. COA16-165

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

NO ERROR.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 25, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00501

- CV

Cecilia A. SANCHEZ

, Appellant

v.

Vicky Brigida ESQUIVEL & Javier Esquivel,

Appellees

Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. SC18

- 009

Honora ble Jim Bob Barrera Senior, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in this court seeking to appeal a judgment entered by a justice court. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal from a justice

court. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 506 (providing for appeal to county court). It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Dewayne WALLACE.

No. COA15-783.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MCLEODUSA INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         455,067
<SECURITIES>                                   136,585
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,568
<INVENTORY>                                     12,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               793,192
<PP&E>                                         704,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,925,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          179,956
<BONDS>                                      1,245,170
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           637
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,925,197
<SALES>                                        604,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               604,146
<CGS>                                          323,208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  323,208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               335,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                19,620
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,234
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (124,912)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,912)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.99)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012138EN.01001201.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-248/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted due to the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary legislation - Decision 2007/361/EC)

(2012/C 138/19)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented: initially by T. Boček, and subsequently by: M. Smolek, acting as Agents)

Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski; subsequently by: M. Dowgielewicz; and finally by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Czech Republic and to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 15, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136665 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: 136665

 COA: 281647 

Kalkaska CC: 06-009320-AR 

District Court: 06-013253-ST-2 

JOSEPH R. BRIEDENSTEIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2008 order 

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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

p1008 

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. 

October 15, 2008 

 Clerk
The RESIDENCES AT BILTMORE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. v. POWER DEVELOPMENT, LLC and Mountain Mortgage, Inc.

No. 390P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

David R. Payne, Asheville, for Power Development, LLC, et al.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville, for The Residences at Biltmore Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.

Erin F. Dunnuck, Attorney, for the Residences at Biltmore Condominium Owners' Association, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of November 2015 by Defendants 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 13th of April 2016."
Exhibit 4.6







WARRANT AGREEMENT ADDENDUM







This Warrant Agreement Addendum (this “Addendum”) is entered into as of the 27th day of July, 2009, by and between Macatawa Bank Corporation, a Michigan corporation (the “Company”) and Registrar and Transfer Company, a New Jersey corporation (the “Warrant Agent”). This Addendum amends and supplements the Warrant Agreement dated, June 16, 2009, between the Company and the Warrant Agent (the “Warrant Agreement”).







The Warrants shall be issued in two series. The total aggregate number of Warrants including both series shall in no event entitle the Holders of such Warrants to purchase more than an aggregate of one million five hundred thousand (1,500,000) Warrant Shares (subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 8 of the Warrant Agreement).







The first series (CUSIP No. 554225 11 0) consisted of 1,361,753 Warrants issued to the initial Holders of the first series on June 17, 2009. For purposes of determining the Exercise Period under the Warrant Agreement for the first series, the first series Warrants were issued to the initial Holders on June 17, 2009. The form of Warrant Certificate for the first series was attached to the June 17, 2009 Warrant Agreement.







The second series (CUSIP No. 554225 12 8) consists of 117,058 Warrants to be issued to the initial Holders of the second series on July 27, 2009. For purposes of determining the Exercise Period under the Warrant Agreement for the second series, the second series Warrants are issued to the initial Holders on July 27, 2009. The form of Warrant Certificate for the second series is attached to this Addendum.







Except as modified by this Addendum, the terms of the Warrant Agreement remain in full force and effect.







All capitalized terms used but not defined in this Addendum shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Warrant Agreement.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.







	
 

	
COMPANY:

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Macatawa Bank Corporation

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
By:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Name:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Title:

	
 

	
 










	
 

	
WARRANT AGENT:

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Registrar and Transfer Company

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
By:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Name:

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
Title:

	
 

	
 










Attachment: Form of second series Warrant Certificate
# C_2009129EN.01001302.xml

| 6.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/13

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2009 — Commission v Berrisford

(Case T-473/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Examination of comparative merits - Obligation to take into account the fact that the official concerned was included in the reserve)

2009/C 129/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Michael Berrisford (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2007 in Case F-107/06 Berrisford v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking the setting aside of that judgment

Berrisford

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders the Commission to bear its own cost and to pay those incurred by Mr Michael Berrisford in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission to bear its own cost and to pay those incurred by Mr Michael Berrisford in the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00093-CV

DONALD HALPAIN AND ALICE HALPAIN,

Appellants

v.

BONDEX INTERNATIONAL INC., RPM, INC., 

RPM INTERNATIONAL, INC., GEORGIAPACIFIC, L.L.C. F/K/A GEORGIA-PACIFIC 

CORPORATION, PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS 

NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, 

KAISER-GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., 

TH AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION, 

L.L.C., UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, 

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, AND 

GUARD-LINE, INC.

Appellees

From the 82nd District Court

Falls County, Texas

Trial Court No. 36,295

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Halpain v. Bondex International Inc. Page 2

Donald1 and Alice Halpain appealed an adverse judgment rendered by the trial 

court. The Halpains’s brief on the merits of the appeal was due September 2, 2008. No 

brief has been filed. By letter dated September 8, 2008 the Clerk of this Court notified 

the Halpains that no brief had been filed. The Clerk also warned them that the appeal 

may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within 21 days from the date of the 

letter, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was filed. More than 21 

days have passed and no response has been filed. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); 42.3.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 15, 2008

[CV06]

 

1 Donald passed away after the notice of appeal was filed.
Exhibit 10.1







 





FIRST AMENDMENT 


 


TO 


 


ADVISORY AGREEMENT


 


AMONG


 


STRATEGIC REALTY TRUST, INC.


 


STRATEGIC REALTY OPERATING PARTNERSHIP,
LP,


 


AND


 


SRT ADVISOR, LLC


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ADVISORY AGREEMENT
(“FIRST AMENDMENT”), dated as of July 15, 2014 (the “Effective Date”) is entered into by and among Strategic
Realty Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation, formerly known as TNP Strategic Retail Trust, Inc. (the “Company”), Strategic
Realty Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, formerly known as TNP Strategic Retail Operating Partnership,
LP (the “Operating Partnership”), and SRT Advisor, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Advisor”).
Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Advisory Agreement.





 


W I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS, the Company, the Operating Partnership and the Advisor
entered into that certain Advisory Agreement dated as of August 10, 2013, (as amended by the First Amendment , the “Advisory
Agreement”) which by its terms will expire on August 9, 2014; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to renew the Advisory Agreement
for an additional 12 months from August 10, 2014, on the terms and conditions set forth below.


 


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the
mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


 


		1.	Term: The Advisory Agreement is hereby renewed for an additional term of twelve months, beginning on August 10, 2014.



		2.	Name Changes: Any reference in the Advisory Agreement to the Company shall mean Strategic Realty Trust, Inc., and any reference
to the Operating Partnership in the Advisory Agreement shall refer to Strategic Realty Operating Partnership, LP.



  



    	 



    	Exhibit 10.1



    



 

		3.	Operating Partnership Interest. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the Special OP Units have been issued to the
Advisor per Section 9(g) of the Advisory Agreement.



		4.	Notices. The Notice Address for the Company, Operating Partnership and the Board is hereby deleted in its entirety, and replaced
by the following:



 


Strategic Realty Trust, Inc.


Attn: Todd Spitzer, Chairman of the Board of Directors


c/o G. Lee Burns


SRT Advisor, LLC


400 S. El Camino Real, Suite 1100


San Mateo, CA 94402


 


		5.	Except as specifically set forth above, the Advisory Agreement shall remain unmodified, and in full force and effect.



 


  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FIRST
AMENDMENT as of the date first above written.


  


Strategic Realty Trust, Inc.


 


  


		By:	/s/ Todd A. Spitzer_________________



Todd A. Spitzer, Chairman of the Board


 


 


Strategic Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.


 


		By:	Strategic Realty Trust, Inc.



Its General Partner


 


		By:	/s/ Todd A. Spitzer_________________



Todd A. Spitzer, Chairman of the Board


 


  


SRT Advisor, LLC


 


		By:	/s/ Andrew Batinovich______________






Andrew Batinovich, President and CEO
KB AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION, LLC v. Jack M. BERRY, Jr., and 585 Goforth Road, LLC

No. 349PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Byron L. Saintsing, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for KB Aircraft Acquisition, LLC.

John H. Small, Attorney at Law, Clint S. Morse, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Berry Jr., Jack M., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of September 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

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).

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01435-CV
IRINA VALENTINA TREST, Appellant

V.

AH4R-TX2, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006-1760-2014



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill
By postcard dated May 18, 2015, we directed appe llant to file her br ief, originally due
May 14, 2015, no later than May 28, 2015. Although cautioned that failure to comply would
result in dismissal of the appeal, appellant has failed to file her brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. & 42.3(b),(c).

141435F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IRINA VALENTINA TREST, Appellant

No. 05-14-01435-CV V.

AH4R-TX2, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 006-1760-2014. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Francis and Lang-Miers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee AH4R-TX2, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Irina Valentina Trest.

Judgment entered June 23, 2015.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jonathan Daniel POTEAT, Defendant.

No. COA15-603.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated in Part, No error in Part; Remanded for Resentencing.