alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kimberly LEDFORD v. INGLES MARKETS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured

No. 182A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Gary A. Dodd, Attorney at Law, Asheville, For Ledford, Kimberly.

Charles E. McGee, Attorney at Law, Asheville, For Ingles Markets, Inc.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 10th of May 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 Defendant, 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 22nd of September 2016."
EXHIBIT 23CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors
Alternative Resources Corporation:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-85078, 333-12693, 333-84967 and 333-84969) on
Form S-8 of Alternative Resources Corporation (the Company) of our report dated April 15, 2003, except for Note 3, as to which the date is January 9, 2004,
which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual report as amended on Form 10-K/A of Alternative Resources Corporation.

As
discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has restated its consolidated financial statements for 2002 and 2001.

Our
report refers to the adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets, on January 1, 2002.

/s/
KPMG LLP
Chicago, Illinois
January 28, 2004

---

QuickLinks
John MCLEAN, Plaintiff, v. BAKER SAND AND GRAVEL, Employer, and NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-1377

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

REMANDED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136689 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: 136689 

 COA: 277519 

Genesee CC: 07-019685-FH 

KEITH WATKINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

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 v. Quintiss Travon Spruiell

253P09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2017

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Spruiell, Quintis Travon.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of January 2017 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of January 2017."
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4028 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

AN ACT 

To amend the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 

to include the desecration of cemeteries among the many 

forms of violations of the right to religious freedom. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4028 RFS

1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Cemeteries are sacred sites that are of great 

4 spiritual, cultural, and historical significance to 

5 many religious and ethnic groups. 

6 (2) Congress is committed to protecting and 

7 preserving the heritage and sacred sites of national, 

8 religious, and ethnic groups, which includes ceme9 teries in the United States and abroad. 

10 (3) Cemeteries around the world have and con11 tinue to be defaced or destroyed as a direct result 

12 of their affiliation with a particular religious or spir13 itual group. 

14 (4) Such attacks constitute an assault on the 

15 fundamental right to freedom of religion, and are es16 pecially egregious when sponsored or tolerated by 

17 the local or national governments in the countries in 

18 which such offenses occur. 

19 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREE20 DOM ACT OF 1998. 

21 Section 2(a)(4) of the International Religious Free22 dom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6401(a)(4)) is amended in 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4028 RFS

1 the fourth sentence by inserting ‘‘desecration of ceme2 teries,’’ after ‘‘confiscations of property,’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008008EN.01001001.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/10

---

Action brought on 12 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-494/07)

(2008/C 8/17)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Recchia)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to

| — | declare, that, by failing to take the measures necessary to implement correctly its obligations under Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 (in conjunction with Annex IV) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, that, by failing to take the measures necessary to implement correctly its obligations under Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 (in conjunction with Annex IV) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main argument

The Commission has examined the compatibility of the measures taken by the Hellenic Republic to transpose Directive 92/43/EEC.

Its review showed that certain provisions of the directive have not been fully implemented and/or have not been transposed correctly.

In particular, the Commission considers that the use of the phrase ‘reasons of essential public interest’ in the Greek legislation instead of the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ referred to in Article 6(4) of the directive, is an incorrect transposition of the provision in question, because it widens the possibility of use of the derogation provided for and is not compatible with the need to interpret it narrowly.

The Commission also considers that the addition, in the Greek legislation, of the words ‘of particular economic significance’ to the phrase ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ contained in Article 6(4) of the directive, bringing into operation the exception provided for in that provision, constitutes an incorrect transposition of Article 6(4) of the directive, because it adds further possibilities of derogation.

Lastly, the Commission ascertained that, as the Greek authorities acknowledge, the provisions of the Greek legislation transposing Articles 12 and 13 do not refer to the Annex which specifies their scope of application, so that the above articles of the directive have not been correctly transposed.

The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic has not correctly implemented Articles 6(4), 12 and 13 of the Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

---

(1)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6715

WILLIE E. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden of McCormick Correctional

Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (6:07-cv-01505-PMD)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Willie E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Johnson 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, Johnson failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific 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 of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Johnson has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

underlying appeal.

Johnson also appeals the district court’s order denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We find no abuse of the district

court’s discretion in its denial of Johnson’s Rule 59(e) motion,

and therefore affirm. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945

F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991).
3

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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
Casey N. KIRKMAN, Petitioner, v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

No. COA 15-1332.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

No appellee brief filed.

Timothy M. Melton, for Respondent-Appellant North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security.

HUNTER, JR., ROBERT N., Judge.

Generally, "the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order from which there may not be an immediate appeal ." *Multiple Claimants v. N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services,* 176 N.C.App. 278, 282, 626 S.E.2d 666, 669 (2006). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-277(b) provides for immediate appeal from an adverse ruling as to the jurisdiction of the trial court, but the statute does not allow appellants to challenge sufficiency of process and service. *Howard v. Ocean Trail Convalescent Ctr.,* 68 N.C.App. 494, 496, 315 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1984) (citing *Love v. Moore,* 305 N.C. 575, 291 S.E.2d 141 (1982) ). Here, Respondent appeals from an order denying Respondent's motion to dismiss, and concluding service of process was proper. We dismiss Respondent's appeal as interlocutory.

DISMISSED.

Judges CALABRIA and TYSON concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
In the MATTER OF: T.S.

No. COA16-587

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED.
SAULS v. SAULS

395P14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

W. Gregory Duke, Attorney at Law, Greenville, for Sauls, Roland Gary.

Jonathan G. McGirt, Attorney at Law, for Sauls, Lois A.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of August 2015 by Defendant for Issuance of Stay:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 E0 01 4 . PEEK v . HARRI NGTON.

Hav i n g read an d co ns i dered t h e “ Em erg en cy M o t i o n fo r Ex t en s i on o f Ti m e to
Fi l e In t erl o cu t o ry Ap p eal ” t h e s am e i s h e r e b y DENIED. Su ch an ex t en s i on i s n ot
al l o wed un d er t h e Ru l es o f t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s . See Ru l e 1 6 (d ).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## September 28, 2018

09/28/2018
# C_2012138EN.01001302.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-398/07) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Spanish broadband internet access markets - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Price-fixing - Margin squeeze - Sincere cooperation - Ultra vires application of Article 82 EC - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations)

(2012/C 138/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3196 final of 4 July 2007 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

---
# C_2008107EN.01004304.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2008 — National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission

(Case T-318/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 107/75)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1574

In Re: CECIL EDWARD JACKSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:97-cv-00261-GCM)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: October 10, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cecil Edward Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cecil Edward Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his

“motion for relief from order granting dismissal without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and/or Rule 60,” filed in

November 2007. He seeks an order from this court directing the

district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is

not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the

mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another

mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously.

We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
  (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 of the Company.
  /s/ HARVEY P. EISENName:
Harvey P. EisenTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
August 5, 2010
 
 /s/ IRA J. SOBOTKOName:
Ira J. SobotkoTitle:
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
August 5, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6692

RICKIE JOSEPH ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PHARMACIST JULIE FINCH; LT. MACK; SGT. K. HALLMAN; DR. CONNIE

VICE; DR. HERBERT MYLES; DR. MICHAEL WEINSTEIN; DANIEL

JOHNSON; JUDGE J. B. ALLEN; H. G. ALEXANDER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:08-ct-03002-FL)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rickie Joseph Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rickie Joseph Anderson appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v.

Finch, No. 5:08-ct-03002-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2008). 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
On petition for review filed March 4,1998,

petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to Court of Appeals for further consideration September 30, 1999

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Petitioner on Review, v.*WILLIAM JOHN DONAHUE, *Respondent on Review.*

(CC C9502-31026; CA A90121; SC S45084)

987 P2d 480

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the petition for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

No appearance *contra.*

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, and Leeson, Justices.**

**

 Van Hoomissen, Kulongoski, and Riggs, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of *State v. Edson,*329 Or 127, 985 P2d 1253 (1999).
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard PRIDGEN

No. 344P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Paul F. Herzog, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Pridgen, Richard.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 16th of September 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 3rd of May 2017."
EXHIBIT
      32.1








The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Saxon Capital, Inc. on the basis of such
      officer’s knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002:





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Saxon Capital, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2006 (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their
      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.





November
                3, 2006
            /s/
                Michael L. Sawyer
              
              Michael
                L. Sawyer
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              
              /s/
                Robert B. Eastep
              
              Robert
                B. Eastep
              Chief
                Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission upon request. This certification accompanies the Report
      and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of the
      Report.
STATE of North Carolina v. Paris Jujuan TODD

No. 18A14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Reid Cater, Attorney at Law, for Todd, Paris Jujuan.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 2nd of September 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:

"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).