alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Everette HINTON

No. 449P11-15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Charles E. Hinton, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of January 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby *286certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

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

Ervin, J. recused
CAROLINA VISION INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Anthony VACCARO, a sole proprietor d/b/a Spiffy Lube Repairs, Defendant.

No. COA16-147

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: November 4, 2004



/s/    DAVID E.
HOOSTONName:

David E. HoostonTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2012039EN.01001301.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/13

---

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)

(Case T-365/07) (1)

(Trade mark - Action for annulment - Applicant’s failure to proceed - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 39/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Traxdata France SARL (Paris, France) (represented initially by F. Valentin, B. Amaudric du Chaffaut and G. Courtois, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ritrax Corporation Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M.H. Blair, M.J. Gilbert, S.S. Malynicz and C.A.N. Balme, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Joined Cases R 1337/2005-1, R 1338/2005-1, R 1339/2005-1 and R 1340/2005-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Ritrax Corporation Ltd and Traxdata France SARL.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | Traxdata France SARL is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Traxdata France SARL is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

---
IN RE: SMITH

88A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 21, 2016

Elizabeth M. Haddix, Attorney at Law, Pittsboro, Mark Dorosin, Attorney at Law, Edwin A. Pressly, Attorney at Law, Statesville, for Smith, Carson, et al.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, *256Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of October 2016 by State of NC for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of October 2016."
Robert Cannon, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 3, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 15, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to *13Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Jocelyn Newman be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Newman shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where she may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Newman shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
STATE of North Carolina v. Phillip Wayne BROYAL

No. 384P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2016.

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Broyal, Phillip Wayne.

Angenette R. Stephenson, Assistant Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of October 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 8th of December 2016."
Dennis DRAUGHON and Megan Draughon, Plaintiffs, v. COBBLESTONE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF CLAYTON, INC., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, Defendant.

Robert Sain and Jennifer Sain, Plaintiffs, v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, Defendant.

Vincent Franks, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, Defendant.

Frank Christopher, Plaintiff, v. Cobblestone Homeowners Association of Clayton, Inc., a North Carolina non-profit corporation, Defendant.

No. COA15-1280 No. COA15-1302 No. COA15-1303 No. COA15-1282

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

Spence & Spence, P.A., Smithfield, by Robert A. Spence, Jr., for Plaintiff-Appellee Frank Christopher.

No briefs filed for other Plaintiffs-Appellees.

*747Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, Raleigh, by J. Matthew Waters and Hope Derby Carmichael, for Defendant-Appellant.

McGEE, Chief Judge.

*246These cases are companion cases to *Sanchez v. Cobblestone* , COA15-1281, filed contemporaneously with these opinions. *Sanchez* includes the facts and analysis relevant to resolution of the cases consolidated in this opinion: COA15-1280, COA15-1282, COA15-1302, and COA15-1303. For the reasons stated in the majority opinion in *Sanchez* , we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Judge HUNTER, JR. concurs.

Judge DILLON dissents with separate opinion.

DILLON, Judge, dissenting.

These are companion cases to *Sanchez v. Cobblestone* , COA15-1281. For the reasons fully stated in my dissenting opinion in *Sanchez* , I respectfully dissent.
ESTATE OF Regina Cecylia JOHNSON v. FUNDACJA JASMIN REGINY ELANDT I NORMANA LLOYDA JOHNSONOW, Ewa Violetta Elandt-Jankowska, Lech Henryk Jankowska, and Hanna Elandt-Pogodzinska

No. 48P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

John M. Kirby, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Johnson, Regina Cecylia (Estate of).

Elizabeth D. Scott, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Charles Steel, IV, Attorney at Law, for Johnsonow, Fundacja Jasmin Reginy Elandt i Normana LLoyda, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of February 2017 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 3rd of May 2017."

Morgan, J. recused
Abrons Family Practice & Urgent Care, PA, et al. v. NC Department of Health & Human Services, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 31, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice And Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ryan L. Bangert, Attorney at Law, Van H. Beckwith, Attorney at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of January 2017 by Van H. Beckwith for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

*360"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of January 2017."
# Official Journal C 415/20 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 415 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5720 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 415

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5720 November 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Committee of the Regions |
| | 108th plenary session, 6—8 October 2014 |
| 2014/C 415/01 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Long-term financing of the European economy | 1 |
| 2014/C 415/02 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Measures to support the creation of high-tech start-up ecosystems | 5 |
| 2014/C 415/03 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European strategy for coastal and maritime tourism | 9 |
| 2014/C 415/04 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 | 14 |
| 2014/C 415/05 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions’ | 18 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Committee of the Regions

108th plenary session, 6—8 October 2014

2014/C 415/01

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Long-term financing of the European economy

1

2014/C 415/02

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Measures to support the creation of high-tech start-up ecosystems

5

2014/C 415/03

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European strategy for coastal and maritime tourism

9

2014/C 415/04

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030

14

2014/C 415/05

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Mobility in geographically and demographically challenged regions’

18

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS |
| | 108th plenary session, 6—8 October 2014 |
| 2014/C 415/06 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The Clean Air Policy Package for Europe | 23 |
| 2014/C 415/07 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational establishments | 30 |
| 2014/C 415/08 | Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — An European Platform Against Undeclared Work | 37 |

III   Preparatory acts

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

108th plenary session, 6—8 October 2014

2014/C 415/06

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The Clean Air Policy Package for Europe

23

2014/C 415/07

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — The aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational establishments

30

2014/C 415/08

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — An European Platform Against Undeclared Work

37

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136123 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136123 

 COA: 279645 
 Wayne CC: 98-006159

COREY COLLINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 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). 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0924 

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 1, 2008 

 Clerk
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00631-CR

Oscar SANCHEZ-OVANDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-8165

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008

DISMISSED

On September 11, 2008, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed

pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right

of appeal was made part of the appellate record within thirty days. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d), 37.1;

see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175-76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order).

Appellant did not file an amended certification. The clerk’s record does not contain a certification

that shows the defendant has the right of appeal; to the contrary, the trial court certification in the
04-08-00631-CR

-2-

record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.”

The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the clerk’s

record supports the trial court’s certification that defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX.R.APP.

P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 392 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to direct 

local educational agencies to release secondary school student information 

to military recruiters if the student’s parent provides written consent 

for the release, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2013 

Mr. HONDA (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. 

MOORE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. POLIS, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to direct local educational agencies to release 

secondary school student information to military recruiters if the student’s parent provides written consent for 

the release, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Student Privacy Pro5 tection Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
2 

HR 392 IH

1 SEC. 2. ACCESS BY MILITARY RECRUITERS TO SECONDARY 

2 SCHOOL STUDENT INFORMATION. 

3 (a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 9528 of the Elementary 

4 and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7908) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) 

7 as subsections (b) through (e), respectively; 

8 (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as so re9 designated) the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) MILITARY RECRUITERS.— 

11 ‘‘(1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFOR12 MATION.—Notwithstanding section 503(c) of title 

13 10, United States Code, each local educational agen14 cy receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, 

15 on a request made by military recruiters, access to 

16 the name, address, and telephone listing of each sec17 ondary student served by the agency if the parent of 

18 the student involved has provided written consent to 

19 the agency for the release of such information to 

20 military recruiters. 

21 ‘‘(2) NOTICE; OPPORTUNITY TO CONSENT.—A 

22 local educational agency receiving assistance under 

23 this Act shall— 

24 ‘‘(A) notify the parent of each secondary 

25 school student served by the agency of the op26 tion to consent to the release of the student’s 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with 
3 

HR 392 IH

1 name, address, and telephone listing to military 

2 recruiters; and 

3 ‘‘(B) give the parent an opportunity to 

4 provide such consent in writing.’’; 

5 (3) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘POLICY.—’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—’’; 

8 and 

9 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘military 

10 recruiters or’’; and 

11 (4) by transferring paragraph (3) of subsection 

12 (b) (as so redesignated) from the end of such sub13 section to the end of subsection (a) (as added by 

14 paragraph (2)). 

15 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 

16 Act apply only with respect to school years beginning after 

17 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPVN1PROD with
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

137401 (17) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

MICHAEL HESTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137401 

 COA: 283475 

PAROLE BOARD, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $81.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$294.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

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 3, 2008 

Clerk
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 No. 04-08-00065-CR

Carlton D. WOODS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 231803

Honorable Olin B. Strauss, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008

AFFIRMED

A jury found defendant guilty of evading arrest or detention, and the trial court assessed

punishment at 180 days, probated.

Defendant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant was informed of his right to review the record. Counsel
04-08-00065-CR

1... No substitute counsel will be appointed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008). Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely

motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must

be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of

the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 

-2-

provided defendant with a copy of the brief and advised him of his right to file a pro se brief.

Defendant did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, and we GRANT appellate

counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997,

no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

 Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
State of North Carolina v. Marva Denyse Gillis, Defendant.

No. COA16-226

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth,
      Inc.
      do hereby certify that:





(a)
      the
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PureDepth, Inc. for the period ended October
      31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:
      December 14, 2007








/s/
      Thomas L. Marcus





Thomas
      L.
      Marcus


Chief
      Executive Officer





/s/
      Jonathan J. McCaman





Jonathan
      J. McCaman


Chief
      Financial Officer and


Chief
      Accounting Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon Colby YAW.

No. COA16-32.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.