alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7830

RAYMOND CHARLES CREASON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus M. W. YORK, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-586) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Charles Creason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Charles Creason seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Creason’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Creason that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Creason failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Creason has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny Creason’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**I, Robert Giardina, Chief Executive Officer of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., certifythat:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Town Sports International Holdings,Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis quarterly report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting;         By: /s/ Robert Giardina       Robert Giardina      *Chief Executive Officer*  Date: November 3, 2006
33
1Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not

participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of

the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7435

RAYMOND PERACCINY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-05-37-5)

Submitted: April 17, 2006 Decided: May 16, 2006

Before LUTTIG,1

 MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Peracciny, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2We decline to address Peracciny’s challenge to the

constitutionality of the Bureau of Prisons’ organ transplant

policy, which was not squarely raised in the district court and, in

any event, is not cognizable under § 2241.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Peracciny, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.2 See Peracciny v. Stansberry, No.

CA-05-37-5 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2005). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

October 15, 2008 

ERRATA

Appeal No. 2008-1029, -1030, -1031, -1032, -1059

Precedential Opinion, Cohesive Tech. Inc. v. Waters Corp. 

Decided: October 7, 2008 

Please make the following change: 

On page 16, footnote 2, line 4, delete “resolved need” and insert -- unresolved need --.
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 June 28, 2008 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/ PETER MAINZ |  | /s/ MICHAEL S. BUCHANAN                                                 
|Name:           |  | Peter Mainz                                                              |  | Name:    |  | Michael S. Buchanan                                                     
|Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer & President                                      |  | Title:   |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer & Director, Worldwide Tax               
|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:           |  | July 23, 2008                                                            |  | Date:    |  | July 23, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,662
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,082
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    597,825
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         417,364
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           411,776
<LOANS>                                        835,243
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,959,847
<DEPOSITS>                                     473,357
<SHORT-TERM>                                   456,285
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,083
<LONG-TERM>                                    437,418
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,959,847
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 64,022
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               72,735
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   561
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               137,318
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              33,623
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,139
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           54,179
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,310
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (58)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,715
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,715
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.06
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,392
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,124
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      791
<RECOVERIES>                                        90
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,733
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,741
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,992
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Aundra HUEY

No. 355PA15

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

*686Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Huey, Derrick Aundra.

Alvin William Keller, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 23rd of October 2015 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:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of October 2015 by State of NC 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 8th of December 2016."

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).
ex4-3.htm







Exhibit 4.3


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 



April 25th, 2008




$125,000.00 


 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Global Clean Energy, Inc., a Maryland corporation (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of Profit Consultants Inc (“Lender”), at its principal office, or at such other place as may be designated in writing by the holders of this Promissory Note (“Note”), the principal sum of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND 00/100 DOLLARS ($125,000.00) (the “Principal Sum”). The unpaid Principal Sum shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months.


 


All payments to be made under this Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America which shall be legal tender for public and private debts at the time of payment.


 


In the event that an action is instituted to collect this Note, or any portion thereof, Maker promises to pay all costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and such other sums as the court may establish.


 


In the event of a default under this Note when due, then the holder of this Note, at its election, may declare the entire unpaid Principal Sum due and payable.


 


Every provision hereof is intended to be several. If any provision of this Note is determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such illegality, invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions hereof, which shall remain binding and enforceable.


 


This Note is made in the State of Maryland and it is mutually agreed that Maryland law shall apply to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this Note.


 


All agreements between the holder of this Note and Maker are hereby expressly limited so that in no contingency or event whatsoever, whether by reason of deferment or acceleration of the maturity of this Note or otherwise, shall the rate of interest hereunder exceed the maximum permissible under applicable law with respect to the holder. If, from any circumstances whatsoever, the rate of interest resulting from the payment and/or accrual of any amount of interest hereunder, at any time that payment of interest is due and/or at any time that interest is accrued, shall exceed the limits prescribed by such applicable law, then the payment and/or accrual of such interest shall be reduced to that resulting from the maximum rate of interest permissible under such applicable law. This provision shall never be superseded or waived.


 


The makers, endorsers, and/or guarantors of this Note do hereby severally waive presentment, demand, protest and notices of protest, demand, dishonor and nonpayment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument is executed as of the date first hereinabove set forth.


 


 


GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC.


 


 


By: /s/ Kenneth Adessky                                    

Kenneth Adessky, CFO
STATE v. Kelvin Allen McNEIL.

No. 508P10-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 3, 2011.

David B. Efird, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kelvin Allen McNeil, Brunswick, for McNeil, Kelvin Allen.

Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of December 2010 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> *189"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2011."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,367
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     23,922
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         55,996
<ALLOWANCE>                                        348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,947
<DEPOSITS>                                      60,145
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,038
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,276
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  89,947
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,745
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,699
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   300
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,744
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,764
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,021
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,723
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       94
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (167)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    906
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         906
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       589
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.00
<LOANS-NON>                                        922
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    217
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   348
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       97
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  348
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               348
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             26
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009044EN.01000901.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-161/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of partnerships or companies on application by nationals of the new Member States - Procedure for certification of self-employed status)

(2009/C 44/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Winkler, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 43 EC — National legislation laying down the conditions for registration of businesses owned by third-country nationals, applicable also to Czech, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish, Slovene and Slovak nationals — Obligation for all members of partnerships and for minority shareholders in limited liability companies who perform activities which are typical of a work relationship to follow a special procedure for determining the applicant's self-employed status, in the course of which they must prove their influence on the management of the business they wish to have registered in the Member State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring for the registration of partnerships or companies in the commercial register on application by persons who are nationals of the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 — with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta — and are members of a partnership or have minority holdings in a limited liability company, a determination by the Arbeitsmarktservice that they are self-employed or the presentation of a work permit exemption certificate, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring for the registration of partnerships or companies in the commercial register on application by persons who are nationals of the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 — with the exception of the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta — and are members of a partnership or have minority holdings in a limited liability company, a determination by the Arbeitsmarktservice that they are self-employed or the presentation of a work permit exemption certificate, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
Integon National Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. Sammy King and Samantha Comer, Co-administrators of the Estate of Grady Saunders King and Billy and Carolyn Hunt, Co-administrators of the Estate of Roxann Carol Turner, Defendants.

No. COA16-600

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRM.
State v. William Miller Baker

35PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 5, 2016

Brendan O'Donnell, Attorney at Law, for Baker, William Miller.

David Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Jennifer Harjo, Attorney at Law, Wilmington.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of August 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of August 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 6th day of September 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.