alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of North Carolina v. Timothy Devon King

No. COA16-261

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136097 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

GLEN C. GATES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136097 

 COA: 272860 

Wayne CC: 98-833563-CK

USA JET AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we VACATE the arbitration award in this case, for the reasons stated in the Court of 

Appeals dissenting opinion. Hewitt v Village of Reed City, 124 Mich 6, 8-9 (1900). We 

REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

CORRIGAN, J., would refer attorney Paul J. Dillon to the Attorney Grievance 

Commission. Mr. Dillon’s submission to the arbitration panel of an ex parte 

supplemental brief in contravention of the rules governing the arbitration may have 

violated MRPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal) 

and 3.5(b) (prohibiting ex parte communication with a judge, juror, prospective juror, or 

other official regarding a pending matter). 

0924 

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
Owen D. Leavitt v. State of North Carolina

No. 192P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Owen D. Leavitt, for Leavitt, Owen D.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 19th of May 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Alexander County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed 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 19th of May 2016 by Petitioner to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
State of North Carolina v. Timothy Wiley, Jr.

No. 201P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Ms. Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Michael Bonfoey, for State of North Carolina.

Ms. Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, Mr. Timothy Wiley, Jr., for Wiley, Timothy (Jr.)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd of May 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Jackson County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

*784"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2009044EN.01007002.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Iordanova v Commission

(Case F-53/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Recruitment - Open competition - Conditions for admission - Rejection of candidature - Diplomas)

(2009/C 44/121)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ivanka Iordanova (Varna, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition on the ground that her post-secondary education was not in a field relevant to a secretarial post and she did not have three years' professional experience in that field — Claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107 of 26.4.2008, p. 44.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Drayton Lamar Thompson

No. 422P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Thompson, Drayton Lamar.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of November 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

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

*367"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

Pursuant to therequirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify as follows:

 

1.                                       RobertEarl is a Manager of BH/RE, LLC, a Nevada Limited-Liability Company (the “Company”).

 

2.                                       Theundersigned certifies to the best of his knowledge:

 

(A)  The Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2005 accompanying this Certification, in the formfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and

 

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

 

 
| Dated:  May 16,  2005 |            |
|----------------------------|-----------------|
|                       |            |
|                       |            |
|                       | /S/ Robert Earl |   |
|                       | Robert Earl     |
|                       | Manager         |

 

----
1The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3595

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Angelo M. Brown, also known as Low, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1999

 Filed: April 13, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angelo M. Brown pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and to possess

with intent to distribute, cocaine base (i.e., “crack cocaine”) and cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Over Brown’s objection, the district court1

assigned Brown one criminal history point each for three prior state convictions for

possessing less than one ounce of marijuana. The court then sentenced him to 124

months imprisonment and five years supervised release. On appeal, Brown argues

that his sentence was excessive, and his marijuana-possession convictions should
-2-

have been considered only as character evidence because they were “minor

infractions.” We affirm.

Circuit precedent forecloses any contention that the three marijuana-possession

convictions should not have been counted for purposes of calculating Brown&s

criminal history score merely because they were allegedly minor infractions. See

United States v. Jenkins, 989 F.2d 979, 979-80 (8th Cir. 1993) (defendant’s

convictions for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in Nebraska state court

were properly included in criminal history score). We also note Brown was either

represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel in each proceeding, and he was

not sentenced to any term of confinement but was only fined. See U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, comment. (backg’d) (1998) (uncounseled misdemeanor

sentences where imprisonment was not imposed are to be counted in criminal history

score).

To the extent Brown is arguing that his sentence was so excessive as to violate

the Eighth Amendment, this argument is also without merit. See Neal v. Grammer,

975 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1992) (this court narrowly reviews sentence to determine

if it is grossly disproportionate and will not disturb sentence within statutory limit

absent abuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Mendoza, 876 F.2d 639, 640-41 (8th

Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate Eighth

Amendment&s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of UAP Holding Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended November 27, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, L. Kenneth Cordell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 10, 2006



By:

/s/  L. Kenneth CordellL. Kenneth CordellPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer
# C_2009102EN.01003702.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2009 — Petrilli v Commission

(Case F-98/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Auxiliary contract staff - Admissibility - Act causing adverse effect - Article 3c and Article 88 of the Conditions of employment of other servants - Duration of the contract - Article 3(1) of the Commission Decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services - Legality)

2009/C 102/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne,Belgium) (represented by: J.-L. Lodomez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority rejecting, pursuant to the Commission Decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services, the applicant's request for renewal of her contract as a member of contract staff and, second, an action for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 July 2007 rejecting Ms Petrilli's request for an extension of her contract as an auxiliary member of contract staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 July 2007 rejecting Ms Petrilli's request for an extension of her contract as an auxiliary member of contract staff;

| 2. | orders the parties to transmit to the Tribunal, within three months of delivery of the present interim judgment, either the amount of the monetary compensation agreed between the parties in respect of the illegality of the decision of 20 July 2007 or their conclusions, with supporting figures, as to that amount; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the parties to transmit to the Tribunal, within three months of delivery of the present interim judgment, either the amount of the monetary compensation agreed between the parties in respect of the illegality of the decision of 20 July 2007 or their conclusions, with supporting figures, as to that amount;

| 3. | reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297 of 8.12.2008, p. 48.

1

---
NUMBER 13-07-00229-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

LINDA DOROTHY SWANEY, Appellant,

v.

THOMAS EDWARD SWANEY, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 377th District Court 

of Victoria County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellee, Thomas Edward Swaney, has filed a motion to dismiss restricted appeal

on grounds that the appellant, Linda Dorothy Swaney, has failed to file her brief. The

appellant's brief in the above cause was due on March 5, 2008. On June 3, 2008, the

Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the
2

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant

reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly injured by the

appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, appellant has neither filed her brief in this

matter nor otherwise responded to the Court’s notice.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain her failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file her brief, or file her brief. Accordingly, the appellee’s

motion to dismiss restricted appeal is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 18th day of September, 2008.
State of North Carolina v. Brian Jack Frazier

No. 289P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Frazier, Brian Jack.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of August 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."
Carl Wayne MOORE, Sr. v. Superintendent Faye DANIELS

No. 451P07-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 12, 2016 September 13, 2016

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Carl Wayne Moore, for Moore, Carl Wayne.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 9th of September 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Beaufort County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of September 2016."
# C_2008142EN.01000902.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-286/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States - Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer - Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owner(s))

(2008/C 142/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and P. Kinsch, avocat)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle's seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement — Obstacle to the free movement of goods — Lack of justification and proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for the dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for the dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

| 2. | orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
# C_2010288EN.01007604.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/76

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 July 2010 — Quadu v Parliament

(Case F-29/07) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/147)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 37.

---
# C_2008171EN.01003602.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2008 — Pathé Distribution SAS v Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency

(Case T-239/07) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 171/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pathé Distribution SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Deprez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (represented by: H. Monet, agent, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency of 8 May 2007 terminating contract No 2006-09120304D1021001FD1507 and, second, an order that the Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 9 737 in execution of the said contract.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPIInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Joel Littman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Joel A. Littman

Joel A. LittmanChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2007

 

----
anyi_ex415.htm


Exhibit 4.15


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 



5
In the Matter of A.L.S., J.J.S, B.M.A.

No. COA15-824.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.