alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

---

EXHIBIT 10.3

# Consent of Independent
Auditors

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Pointer Telocation Systems
Ltd. (the Company), on Form F-3 and on Form S-8, and each prospectus
constituting a part thereof, of our report dated February 7, 2006, relating to the
financial statements for Pointer Recuperación de México, S.A de C.V, for the
year ended December 31, 2005 included in this Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ SALLES, SAINZ - GRANT THORNTON, S.C.

Mexico City, Mexico 
June 26, 2006



---

---
# C_2011252EN.01003001.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2011 — Hitachi and Others v Commission

(Case T-112/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Proof of the infringement - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Deterrent effect - Cooperation)

2011/C 252/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Hitachi Ltd (Tokyo, Japan); Hitachi Europe Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom); and Japan AE Power Systems Corp. (Tokyo) (represented by: M. Reynolds, P. Mansfield and B. Roy, Solicitors, D. Arts, lawyer, N. Green QC, and S. Singla, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault, then X. Lewis, and subsequently P. Van Nuffel and J. Bourke, and finally P. Van Nuffel, N. Khan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, primarily, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) to the extent to which it concerns the applicants and annulment of the fines imposed on them and, in the alternative, for the annulment of Article 2 of that decision to the extent to which it concerns the applicants and, in the further alternative, for the annulment or a reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions), 52.8(d) (“W hen 1

denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”).

NUMBER 13-08-00591-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN RE: PABLO ZUNIGA

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator, Pablo Zuniga, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on October 17,

2008, asking that this Court compel the District Clerk of Hidalgo County to provide to him

a copy of the Pre-Sentence Investigation report used at relator’s criminal trial.

We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This

Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that

issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §

22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San

Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); see also In re Nubine, No. 13-08-507-CV, 2008 Tex. App.

LEXIS 6534, *1 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2008, orig. proceeding).
2

Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed on the 23rd day of October, 2008.
# C_2009069EN.01005303.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/53

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 — Commission v Banca di Roma

(Case T-261/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/117)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
28 March 2007





CONSENT OF EXPERT







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis(MD&A) of the Company, which are incorporated by reference therein.



The undersigned hereby consents to the use of the undersigneds name and information derived from the report titled Nevsun Resources Ltd. 43-101 Technical Report on the Feasibility Assessment, Bisha Property, Gash-Barka District, Eritrea dated 15 November 2006, in the 40-F, the AIF and the MD&A.





AMEC Americas Limited



/s/Steve Toevs

_____________________

Steve Toevs

Vice-President, Finance

Natural Resources/ Oil Sands & Mining
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,454,925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,590,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,551,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,294,688
<PP&E>                                      81,765,399
<DEPRECIATION>                            (17,629,464)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,430,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,813,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,695
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,582,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,430,623
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,102,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,747,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,308
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             481,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,356,568
<INCOME-TAX>                                   942,627
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,413,941
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,413,941
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

PAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

DIRECTORS’ DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM 

I, [Name], Par Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”), on this
            day of                     , hereby elect to defer my [2014]
compensation as specified below under the Par Petroleum Corporation Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”): 
 1.
Cash Amount $        . 
 2. Common Stock [ Number of Shares]. 

In connection with the above deferred amount I elect to commence the payment of my distribution on (select one): 

1.         The earlier of my death or my separation from service with the Company. 

2.         The earlier of [Date] at least 24 months after this election is made or my separation
from service. 
 I understand all amounts are subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the
Plan. 
 This form must be returned to the Company no later than
                    . 
  

			
	By:	 	  

		 	Signature
STATE v. Raymond Dakim Harris JOINER

514P13-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Raymond Joiner, for Joiner, Raymond Dakim Harris.

Ryan Frank Haigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of February 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136628 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136628 

 COA: 282559 

Wayne CC: 03-011173

DEANDRE KNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1020 

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 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Thomas As

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2014

No. 04-12-00852-CV

Jerry L. HAMBLIN and Ricochet Energy, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Thomas A. LAMONT,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CVF-000665-D2

The Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice1

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice2

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Court has considered Appellee Thomas A. Lamont’s Motion for En Banc 

Reconsideration, Appellants’ Response to the Motion for En Banc Reconsideration, and 

Appellee’s Reply in Support of Motion for En Banc Reconsideration, and Appellee’s Motion for 

En Banc Reconsideration is DENIED. 

It is so ORDERED on April 17, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 Not participating

2 Dissents to denial of the motion for en banc reconsideration.
STATE v. Douglas Harold MCMICKLE

532P11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

*242Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Douglas H. McMickle, for McMickle, Douglas Harold.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of theundersigned officers of Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), doeshereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended July 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complieswith the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 

Dated: September 18, 2009 

/s/ J.L. Guerra, Jr.                           

J.L. Guerra, Jr. Chief Executive Officer Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. 

Dated: September 18, 2009 

/s/ Rakesh Malhotra                     

Rakesh Malhotra, C.A., Chief Financial Officer Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and will beretained by Yukon Gold Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
1

The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 07-1225/1338

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Michael Gerald Gamboa, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 3, 2008

Filed: October 6, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Michael Gamboa challenges the district court’s1

initial failure to rule on his pro se post-judgment motions and its subsequent denial of

his pro se motions. We dismiss Appeal No. 07-1225 for lack of appellate jurisdiction,

because Gamboa filed his notice of appeal before a final order was entered. Cf.

Waterson v. Hall, 515 F.3d 852, 853, 855-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (dismissing appeals for

lack of jurisdiction when court concluded there was no final appealable order). As to
-2-

Appeal No. 07-1338, we find no basis for reversal and accordingly affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
State of North Carolina v. Nashid Porter

No. 153P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016

Mr. Nashid Porter, Pro se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

**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, New Hanover County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2016."
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 2005 / Presidential Documents 55013 

Memorandum of September 9, 2005 

Assignment of Functions with Respect to Loan Guarantees to 

Egypt 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United 

States, including section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, I hereby 

assign to the Secretary of State the functions conferred upon the President 

relating to loan guarantees to Egypt in paragraph (2) under the heading 

‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in chapter 5 of title I of the Emergency Wartime 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108–11). 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

W 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 9, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–18740 

Filed 9–16–05; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resortand Casino (the “Company”) do each hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2007 (the “***Report***”) that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company as of January 31, 2007 and for the period thenended.       Date: March 12, 2007 By /s/ Brian D. Parrish     Name: Brian D. ParrishIts:       Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer)         Date: March 12, 2007 By /s/ Lance Kintz     Name: Lance KintzIts:       Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)       The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
BMY Ex 10a Extension Notice for 2011 Credit Agreement - BMS Citibank






EXHIBIT 10a.
        
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154




Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013
Attention:  Pamela Kowalski
           June 2, 2014


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Re: Extension of Maturity Date


Reference is made to the Five Year Competitive Advance and Revolving Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of September 29, 2011, as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified prior to the date hereof (the “Credit Agreement”) among Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Borrowing Subsidiaries, the lenders parties thereto (the “Lenders”), certain Agents, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement.


Pursuant to Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement, the Company hereby requests that the Lenders extend the Maturity Date in effect on the date hereof (i.e., September 29, 2017) to the first anniversary of such Maturity Date, such that the extended Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement will be September 29, 2018.  This letter shall constitute an “Extension Letter” as referred to in Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement.






	
	
	Very truly yours,
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

	By:   /s/ Jeffrey Galik
Name:  Jeffrey Galik
Title:    Senior Vice President and Treasurer









E-10-1
Exhibit 14.3





BAKER TILLY





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399, 333-167144) and related Prospectus and on Form S-8 (No. 333-173155, 333-118897, 333-113420, 333-141306, 333-139717) pertaining to the Employee Share Option Plan of Pointer Telocation Ltd., of our report dated February 8, 2013, with respect to the financial statements of Pointer do Brazil Commercial S.A, included in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Pointer Telocation Ltd., for the year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/ BAKER TILLY BRASIL

By /Ricardo Julio Rodil, CPA





October 29, 2013
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00085-CV

Mayra OROZCO,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY,

Appellee

From County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 322424

Honorable Timothy Johnson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 8, 2008

REVERSED AND REMANDED

The appellant filed an appeal from the trial court’s granting of appellee’s motion to dismiss

and plea to the jurisdiction, in which she asks that the court’s order be reversed and the cause

remanded. Appellee has filed a letter with this court “acquiesc[ing] to any relief sought by

[appellant] and respectfully ask[ing] this Court to grant” the requested relief. We therefore reverse

the trial court’s Order of November 1, 2007 and remand this cause to the trial court for further

proceedings.

PER CURIAM
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

January 7, 2014 

# Order

Clerk January 7, 2014

147296 ( 99 ) (100)

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM and WAYNE

COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION,

Plaintiffs/ Counter

Defendants

- Appellees,

SC: 147296

v COA: 308096

Wayne CC: 10

- 013013

- AW

CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE,

Defendant/Counter

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

a nd

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiffs/counter

- defendants

appellees for immediate consideration and to extend the time to file their supplemental

brief are GRANT ED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if filed on or before

January 22, 2014.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2823

_____________________________
J OHN R. R EYNOLDS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. William F. Stone , Judge

. June 26, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 John R. Reynolds, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Quentin Humphrey
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 13, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11915 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 8 4 - C R - OR L - 2 2 DA B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J U A N G U Z M A N - C R U Z , a .k .a . M a r io G o n z a le z - R a n g e l, a .k .a . M a x im o R . G o n z a le z , D e f e n d an t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 13, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , M A R C U S an dW IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

C lar e n c e W . C o u n ts , J r ., ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rJu an G u z m an - C ru z in th is appeal , has m ov ed t o w i thd raw fr om further r epre se nt at i on of the appel l antand h as f i l e d abr i e f

pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 49 3 (19 67 ). O ur i nd ependentre vi ew of the ent i re re cord revea l s that co u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd G uz m an- C ruz ’ s c onvi c t i on and re sul t i ng se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
STATE v. Gyrell Shavonta LEE

335PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 18, 2017

Paul M. Green, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Lee, Gyrell Shavonta.

Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Cato Institute.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of May 2017 by Amicus Ilya Shapiro for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of May 2017."