alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State v. Charles Everette Hinton

449P11-13

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Charles E. Hinton, Pro Se.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of February 2016 by Petitioner for Necessary Joinder of Parties:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Exhibit 32.1



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 Sterling Gold Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Allen Collins, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 18thday of September, 2007.                                                                                                               
|   

ALLEN COLLINSAllen Collins, President, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer





















---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,138
<SECURITIES>                                     3,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,516
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,805
<PP&E>                                          60,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           249
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,083
<SALES>                                        214,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,009
<CGS>                                          145,922
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,824
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,791
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,978
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .84


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6510

FRANK PRIEST,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DARNLEY HODGE, SR., Superintendent of Riverside Regional Jail;

MS. BEACH, Accounting Tech of Riverside Regional Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:08-cv-00098-GBL-TCB)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Priest, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Frank Priest appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Priest v. Hodge, No. 1:08-cv-00098-GBL-TCB

(E.D. Va. filed Feb. 29, 2008; entered Mar. 3, 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
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4119 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study 

of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. BARROW of Georgia, and Mr. BISHOP of 

Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 

resource study of the West Hunter Street Baptist 

Church in Atlanta, Georgia, 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 ‘‘West Hunter Street 

5 Baptist Church Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

7 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall con8 duct a special resource study of the historic West Hunter 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4119 IH

1 Street Baptist Church, located at 775 Martin Luther King 

2 Jr. Drive, SW., Atlanta, Georgia. 

3 (b) CONTENTS.—In conducting the study under sub4 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

5 (1) evaluate the national significance of the 

6 site; 

7 (2) determine the suitability and feasibility of 

8 designating the area as a unit of the National Park 

9 System; 

10 (3) consider other alternatives for preservation, 

11 protection, and interpretation of the site by Federal, 

12 State, or local governmental entities, or private and 

13 nonprofit organizations; 

14 (4) consult with interested Federal, State, or 

15 local governmental entities, private and nonprofit or16 ganizations or any other interested individuals; and 

17 (5) identify cost estimates for any Federal ac18 quisition, development, interpretation, operation, and 

19 maintenance associated with the alternatives. 

20 (c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

21 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with sec22 tion 8 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–5; commonly 

23 known as the ‘‘National Park Service General Authorities 

24 Act’’). 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4119 IH

1 (d) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

2 on which funds are first made available for the study 

3 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the 

4 Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Rep5 resentatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

6 Resources of the Senate a report containing the results 

7 of the study and any conclusions and recommendations of 

8 the Secretary. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NUMBER 13-22-00345-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JUSTIN HERNANDEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Justin Hernandez, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number 20FC-0583-C. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 

appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25.2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The 

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from nonappealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered 
2

while eliminating, at an early stage, the time and expense associated with nonappealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist., 159 S.W.3d 

645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Within thirty days of date of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. 

Randall E. Pretzer, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant 

has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within 

thirty days of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant 

has a right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 

614–15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to 

appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under 

circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the 

applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by 

the record. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15; cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.
3

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on

the 26th day of July 2022.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4030 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4030 EH

1 SECTION 1. FATHER RICHARD MARQUESS-BARRY POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in 

5 Miami, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Father Richard Mar11 quess-Barry Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4030 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postquess-Barry Post Office Building’’. Miami, Florida, as the ‘‘Father Richard Mar- al Service located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in
State v. Nathan Lorenzo Holden

316P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. Nathan Lorenzo Holden, Raleigh, Pro Se.

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of August 2016 by Defendant for Writ of Prohibition:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
**Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 February 2008 – Brinkmann v OHIM**

**(Case C‐243/07 P)**

Appeal – Community trade mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Word sign ‘terranus’ – Refusal of registration

Appeals – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the evidence – Inadmissibility Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of
Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 34)

**Re:**

| | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2007 in Case T 322/05 | Brinkmann | v | OHIM | – | Terra Networks | ( | Terranus | ) dismissing the action brought by the applicant for the Community word mark ‘TERRANUS’ (for goods in Class 36) for annulment of Decision R 1145/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 June 2005, by which the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division to refuse registration of the mark was dismissed in opposition proceedings brought by the holder of the Community trade mark and national figurative mark ‘TERRA’ for goods in Class 36 – Likelihood of confusion between the two marks. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the appeal; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Mr Brinkmann to pay the costs. |
# C_2008313EN.01003101.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2008 — Aventis Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (Prazol)

(Case T-95/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PRAZOL - Earlier national word mark PREZAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 313/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aventis Pharma SA (Antony, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by S. Laitinen, and subsequently by Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Nycomed GmbH, formerly Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: A. Ferchland, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Altana Pharma AG and Aventis Pharma SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Case R 302/2005-4);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aventis Pharma SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Aventis Pharma SA;

| 3. | Orders Nycomed GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Nycomed GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3975 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3975

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage for 
       low vision devices under Medicare, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2014

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage for 
       low vision devices under Medicare, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR LOW VISION DEVICES.

    (a) Coverage as Durable Medical Equipment.--Section 1861(n) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting ``low 
vision devices (as defined in subsection (iii)(1)),'' after ``hospital 
beds,''.
    (b) Low Vision Devices Defined.--Section 1861 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:

                    ``Low Vision Device; Low Vision

    ``(iii)(1) The term `low vision device' means a device that--
            ``(A) is an electronic optical device with one or more 
        lenses that operates to modify or enlarge images;
            ``(B) is prescribed by an ophthalmologist or optometrist to 
        an individual with low vision in order to address such low 
        vision; and
            ``(C) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may 
        prescribe.
    ``(2) The term `low vision' means macular degeneration, glaucoma, 
or other visual impairment that--
            ``(A) cannot be corrected by standard eyeglasses, contact 
        lenses, medication, or surgery; and
            ``(B) interferes with the ability of the individual 
        involved to perform everyday activities (as determined by the 
        Secretary).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to low vision devices furnished on or after January 
1, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19223]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Parts 250 and 256

RIN 1010-AD16


Oil, Gas, and Sulphur Operations and Leasing in the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS)--Cost Recovery

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: MMS is delaying until January 1, 2006, the effective date of a 
rule that will implement fees to offset MMS's costs of providing 
certain services related to its mineral programs. This delay is 
necessary because of damage caused in the New Orleans area by Hurricane 
Katrina and subsequent flooding. The delay will provide relief to the 
government and the oil and gas industry as they recover from this 
disaster.

DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 30 CFR Parts 250 and 256 
published at 70 FR 49871, August 25, 2005 is delayed until January 1, 
2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Mazzullo, Offshore Minerals 
Management (OMM) Budget Office at (703) 787-1691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rule published August 25, 2005, requires 
MMS to develop additional procedures that MMS will provide to the oil 
and gas industry in the form of a Notice to Lessees. The primary office 
responsible for developing those procedures, the MMS Gulf of Mexico 
Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana, has been closed since 
Hurricane Katrina and the flooding that followed that disaster. 
Moreover, many of the lessees and operators subject to the rule are 
similarly engaged in the restoration of normal operations following 
Hurricane Katrina. Lessees and operators will be making changes in 
their own procedures to comply with the rule. Lessees and operators 
whose operations have been interrupted as a result of the hurricane may 
not be able to make these changes until normal operations resume. 
Accordingly, the Department of the Interior is postponing the effective 
date of the final rule until January 1, 2006.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 05-19223 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Kevin Gerity v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

No. 249P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

*328Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, for Gerity, Kevin.

Joseph E. Elder, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of July 2016 by Petitioner 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."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 1st of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
State of North Carolina v. Christopher Barrett, Defendant.

No. COA16-327

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR.