alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Marian Olivia CURTIS

441P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2016

*683Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Timothy J. Rohr, Attorney at Law, Lenoir, for Curtis, Marian Olivia.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of December 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of December 2016."
# C_2008285EN.01001201.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/12

---

Order of the Court of 20 June 2008 — Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-448/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure - Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 - European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 1995) - Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 - Classification of the body ‘Madrid Calle 30’ in the ‘general government sector’ - Eurostat press release - Actionable act)

(2008/C 285/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid Calle 30, SA (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra and R. González-Gallarza Granizo, abogados)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and L. Escobar Guerrero, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007, Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA v Commission (T-177/06) dismissing as inadmissible an action for annulment of the Eurostat news release No 48/2006 of 24 April 2006 to the extent that it contains a decision of the Commission (Eurostat) on the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘public administration’ sector within the European System of Accounts (ESA 95)

Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA are ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30, SA are ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
SCHEFFER, Deceased v. Nathaniel Eugene DALTON.

No. 386P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Michael J. Levine, Mooresville, for Scheffer, John James (Ind. & Adm.), et al.

William F. Lipscomb, Wilkesboro, for Dalton, Nathaniel Eugene.

Michael J. Greer, Mooresville, for Scheffer, John James (Ind. & Adm.).

Ann C. Rowe, Winston-Salem, for NC Association of Defense Attorneys.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of November 2015 by Defendant 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 17th of March 2016."
# C_2008064EN.01002301.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/23

---

Appeal brought on 31 December 2007 by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-565/07 P)

(2008/C 64/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (represented by: S. Schäffler, Rechtsanwältin)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc.

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007. |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007.

| — | Order the defendant and defendant on appeal to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant and defendant on appeal to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on an infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. It was not until the proceedings before the Board of Appeal that the Court of First Instance refused to uphold the appellant's request for the opponent to prove the use of its mark. The Court of First Instance thereby misconceived the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments and infringed Article 43(2) and (3) and Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94.

Pursuant to the principle of continuity in terms of functions between OHIM departments the Board of Appeal should have based its decision on all of the claims made by the appellant both in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and those before the Board of Appeal.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136353 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136353 

 COA: 279811 

Wayne CC: 88-006617-01

WILLIAM RAY JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0915 

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
State of North Carolina v. John Wayne Bonetsky

No. 180P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Sharon L. Smith, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Bonetsky, John Wayne.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of May 2016 by Defendant 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 9th of June 2016."

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

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of May 2016 for Writ of 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# C_2008301EN.01006303.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/63

---

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

(Case T-222/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/115)

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 249, 14.10.2006.

1

---
Order filed April 5, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00112

- CV

____________ LINDA A. STEWART; JOHN GARRETH STEWART, GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF THE WARD, LINDA ANNETTE STEWART AND LEE STEWART, GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF THE WARD,

LINDA ANNETTE STEWART , Appellant s

V. BONBROOK PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- DCV

- 273574



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case wa s filed February 18, 2022

. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant s are excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issu es the following ord er.Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before April 15, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be
dismissed.

PER CURI AM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant and Wilson.
# C_2008301EN.01003602.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Lafarge Cement v Commission

(Case T-195/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 301/61)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Lafarge Cement S.A. (Malogoszcz, Poland) (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and F. Puel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of The European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Lafarge Cement S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lafarge Cement S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Francine Dubois, hereby certify that the July 31, 2009 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as filed by iDcentrix, Inc. (the “Company”), which contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities        Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date:  September 21, 2009 |  /s/ Francine Dubois        |
|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                | Francine Dubois                       |
|                                | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                | (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

 

 

 

----
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00540-CV

IN RE: CLAIMED LIEN AND AMENDED LIEN OF 

JUDITH P. KENNEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 03-493(B)

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

DISMISSED

Judith P. Kenney & Associates, P.C., Judith P. Kenney, Nat M. Kenney, III, T.W. Smith,

Minnie Smith, and Melissa Peoples, Individually and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of

Laura Smith Gault, Deceased, have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that the parties

have settled their claims. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them. 

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Donna Lehmann, asTreasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C. (the “Company”),certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: August14, 2007
|        | /S/ Donna Lehmann                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Donna Lehmann                                           |
|   | Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Basil Brandon BLAKE and Janet Ward Nance, Defendants.

No. COA16-348

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR; DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5488-5489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1870]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration


Petitions for Modification

    The following parties have filed petitions to modify the 
application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the 
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.

1. Falkirk Mining Company (The)

[Docket No. M-2005-002-C]

    The Falkirk Mining Company, 2801 1st Street SW, PO Box 1087, 
Underwood, North Dakota 58576 has filed a petition to modify the 
application of 30 CFR 77.803 (Fail safe ground check circuits on high-
voltage resistance grounded systems) to its Falkirk Mine (MSHA I.D. No. 
32-00491) located in Mclean County, North Dakota. The petitioner 
requests a modification of the existing standard to allow an 
alternative method of compliance when raising or lowering the boom mast 
at construction sites during initial Dragline assembly. This method 
would only be used during the boom mast raising or lowering, and the 
machine will not be performing mining operations when raising or 
lowering the boom for construction or maintenance. The procedure would 
also be applicable in instances of disassembly or major maintenance 
which require the boom to be raised or lowered. The petitioner has 
listed specific guidelines in this petition that would be followed to 
minimize the potential for electrical power loss during this critical 
boom procedure. The petitioner asserts that application of the proposed 
alternative method will not result in a diminution of safety to the 
miners.

Request for Comments

    Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit 
comments via Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov; E-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecaf8381818982989faca1bfa4adc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="286b4745454d465c5b68657b6069064f475e">[email protected]</span></a>; Fax: (202) 693-9441; or Regular Mail/Hand 
Delivery/Courier: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209. All comments must be postmarked or 
received in that office on or before March 4, 2005. Copies of these 
petitions are available for inspection at that address.


[[Page 5489]]


    Dated at Arlington, Virginia this 26th day of January 2005.
Rebecca J. Smith,
Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances.
[FR Doc. 05-1870 Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fannie Mae v. Price

257P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. William Gerald Price, Pro Se.

Ms. Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, For Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of September 2016 by Petitioner for Certified Certificate of Registration pursuant to F.A.R.A., USC 22 § 611 :

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-100118 of McLeodUSA Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated March 3,
2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of McLeodUSA
Incorporated as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 (Reorganized Company balance
sheets) and for the year ended December 31, 2003 and the period from April 17,
2002 through December 31, 2002 (Reorganized Company operations) and the period
from January 1, 2002 through April 16, 2002 (Predecessor Company operations)
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of McLeodUSA Incorporated for the
year ended December 31, 2003.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 15, 2004
* 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. 07-60809

Summary Calendar

JUAN ANGEL GARZA-GARCIA,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A18-444-988

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Angel Garza-Garcia (Garza) petitions this court for review of the

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the

immigration judge’s order denying his application for a waiver of removability

under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §

1182(c). The BIA concluded that Garza was not eligible for a waiver because he

was found removable as an aggravated felon as that term was defined in §

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60809

2

101(a)(43)(F) of the INA and because § 101(a)(43)(F) did not have a “comparable

ground” of inadmissibility under § 212(a) of the INA. 

Garza argues that the BIA’s application of the comparable grounds test

to deny him a § 212(c) waiver violates his right to equal protection because it

treats him differently than other similarly situated aliens. This argument is

foreclosed under the law of this circuit. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 371-72

(5th Cir. 2007). Garza’s assertion that this court should adopt the equal

protection analysis set forth by the Second Circuit in Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d

88 (2d Cir. 2007), would require that Vo be overruled. “Absent an en banc or

intervening Supreme Court decision, one panel of this court may not overrule a

prior panel’s decision.” United States v. Rodriguez-Jaimes, 481 F.3d 283, 288

(5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4053 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to establish standards for the provision of mammograms at health 

care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish standards for the 

provision of mammograms at health care facilities of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘VA Timely Mammo5 gram Results Act of 2013’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4053 IH

1 SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR PROVISION OF MAMMOGRAMS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 17 of 

3 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following section: 

5 ‘‘§ 1720H. Standards for providing results of mammo6 grams at Department facilities 

7 ‘‘The Secretary shall establish standards with respect 

8 to the timeliness of providing to patients the results of 

9 mammograms performed at a facility of a Department and 

10 reporting such results. In establishing such standards, the 

11 Secretary shall take into consideration the best practices 

12 of the private sector.’’. 

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

14 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding 

15 after the item relating to section 1720G the following new 

16 item: 

‘‘1720H. Standards for providing results of mammograms at Department facilities.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS