alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Leonard Paul SCHALOW

No. 4PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Schalow, Leonard Paul.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th of January 2017 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 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of January 2017 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 16th of March 2017."

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).
IN RE: J.L.T. and S.R.J.T.

244P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 24, 2017

Lisa Anne Wagner, Attorney at Law, for Hawkins, Amber Nicole.

Anne C. Wright, Attorney at Law, Boone, for Triplett, Steven.

Daniel S. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Wilkes County DSS.

Amanda Armstrong, Attorney at Law, For GAL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2017 by Petitioner for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of July 2017."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                       Ancor Communications, Incorporated
                 Amendments to 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
             Adopted by the Board of Directors on September 1, 1998


               WHEREAS, the Company's 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the
"Plan") currently provides for issuance of up to 75,000 shares of Common Stock.

               WHEREAS, The Board of Directors believes that it is in its best
interests of the Company to amend the Plan to provide for the issuance of an
additional 300,000 shares of Common Stock.

               RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended to provide for the
issuance of an additional 300,000 shares (the "Shares") of Common Stock.

               FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors authorizes the
issuance of the Shares pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

               FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shares issued pursuant to the Plan
shall be, upon issuance and payment therefor, duly authorized, validly issued,
fully paid and nonassessable.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136626 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136626 

 COA: 283145 

Wayne CC: 90-000039-FC

CHERYL DENISE YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 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
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

 This Court issued a memorandum opinion in our cause 13-03-00469-CV regarding relator’s 2

conviction on December 21, 2006. See Perez v. State, 216 S.W .3d 855, 857 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2006,

pet. ref’d). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused relator’s petition for discretionary review on

November 14, 2007. Mandate was issued on January 28, 2008. 

NUMBER 13-08-555-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ROBERTO PEREZ, JR.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Roberto Perez, Jr., pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on September 29, 2008. The petition for writ of mandamus is unclear; however, 2

to the extent that relator seeks review from this Court regarding actions of the trial court,

court reporters, district clerks, or otherwise, the Court DENIES the petition for writ of

mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.8. 
2

To the extent that relator seeks a petition for writ of mandamus as against this

Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to promptly forward

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 6th day of October, 2008.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18928]


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

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

    Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 
the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposals

    (1) Collection title: Evidence for Application of Overall Minimum.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: G-319, G-320.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0083.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: 1/31/2007.
    (5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit, Non-profit institutions.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 475.
    (8) Total annual responses: 475.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 170.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 3(f)(3) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act, the total monthly benefits payable to a railroad 
employee and his family are guaranteed to be no less than the amount 
which would be payable if the employee's railroad service had been 
covered by the Social Security Act.
    Additional Information or Comments: Copies of the forms and 
supporting documents can be obtained from Charles Mierzwa, the agency 
clearance officer (312-751-3363 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcffd4ddced0d9cf92f1d5d9cec6cbddfceeeefe92fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eead868f9c828b9dc0a3878b9c94998faebcbcacc0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed 
to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16447978777a72385e79727766665644445438515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affdc0c1cec3cb81e7c0cbcedfdfeffdfded81e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a> and to the OMB 
Desk Officer for the RRB, at the Office of Management and Budget, Room 
10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Charles Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18928 Filed 9-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2008 – ratiopharm v OHIM (BioGeneriX)**

**(Case T-47/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark BioGeneriX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 26-28)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2006 (Case R 1047/2004-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark BioGenerix as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | ratiopharm GmbH |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark BioGeneriX for goods and services in Classes 5, 35, 40 and 42 – Application No 1701762 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders ratiopharm GmbH to pay the costs. |
Thomas J. MCLEOD, Plaintiff, v. Sandra A. MCLEOD, Defendant.

No. COA16-871

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 20, 2017

VACATED AND REMANDED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4141 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4141

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to enter into enhanced-use leases for excess property 
 of the National Cemetery Administration that is unsuitable for burial 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2014

  Mr. Crenshaw (for himself, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. 
 Yoho, and Mr. Mica) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to enter into enhanced-use leases for excess property 
 of the National Cemetery Administration that is unsuitable for burial 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO ENTER INTO 
              ENHANCED-USE LEASES FOR EXCESS PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL 
              CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION THAT IS UNSUITABLE FOR BURIAL 
              PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 8162(a)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``only for the provision'' and all that 
        follows through the period at the end and inserting ``only if 
        the lease is not inconsistent with and will not adversely 
        affect the mission of the Department for--''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
            ``(A) the provision of supportive housing; or
            ``(B) other purposes, only in the case of excess property 
        of the National Cemetery Administration that is unsuitable for 
        burial purposes.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to a lease entered into after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.0**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.**‘**1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO****SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) of TF Financial Corporation (the “Company”)as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Kent C. Lufkin,President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis R. Stewart, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer), herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ‘1350, as adopted pursuant to ‘906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Kent C.  Lufkin                    |                                                  | /s/ Dennis R. Stewart |   |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
| Kent C.  Lufkin                        | Dennis R. Stewart                                     |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                   |                                                  |
|                                   |                                                  |
| March 28,  2005                   |                                                  |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40241

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT K KIRKLAND

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-456-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Robert K. Kirkland has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Kirkland has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Rosa Serrano

,

Appellant

,

v.

Pellicano Business Park LLC

,

Appellee

. '

'

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 290

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012

- DCV06341 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter = s request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter = s Record until February 29, 2015

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER = S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Leticia Dittmar , Court Reporter for the County Court at Law

No. 7

, for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter = s Record for the above styled and

numbered cause, and forward the same to this Court on or before February 29, 2015

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December , 201 5

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes , JJ.

(Hughes, J., not participating)
# C_2009044EN.01000601.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

(Case C-48/07) (1)

1

(Corporation taxes - Directive 90/435/EEC - Status of parent company - Capital holding - Holding of shares in usufruct)

(2009/C 44/09)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État belge — SPF Finances

Applicant:

Defendant: Les Vergers du Vieux Tauves SA

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiary companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Meaning of holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member State — Whether holding a right of usufruct over shareholdings is sufficient for tax exemption on dividends received, or whether full ownership is needed.

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of a holding in the capital of a company of another Member State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, does not include the holding of shares in usufruct.

However, in compliance with the freedoms of movement guaranteed by the EC Treaty, applicable to cross-border situations, when a Member State, in order to avoid double taxation of received dividends, exempts from tax both the dividends which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares with full title and those which a resident company receives from another resident company in which it holds shares in usufruct, that Member State must apply, for the purpose of exempting received dividends, the same treatment to dividends received from a company established in another Member State by a resident company holding shares with full title as that which it applies to such dividends received by a resident company which holds shares in usufruct.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
# C_2009069EN.01003702.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — Fox Racing v OHIM — Lloyd IP (SHIFT)

(Case T-74/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - No need to adjudicate)

(2009/C 69/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fox Racing, Inc. (Morgan-Hill, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Lloyd IP Limited (Penrith, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Elliot, solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 December 2005 (Case R 1180/2004-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Lloyd IP Limited and Fox Racing Inc.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is to pay its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is to pay its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

| 3. | The intervener is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The intervener is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE

315PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 15, 2017

James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, James R. DeMay, Attorney at Law, Concord, John F. Scarborough, Attorney at Law, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Paul M. Cox, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Steven A. Scoggan, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, F. Paul Calamita, III, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Water Quality Association and Seven Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 11th of May 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of May 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 21st day of June 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Justice Programs

[Docket No. OJP (OJP) 1421]


Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Justice.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, is 
announcing a meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review 
Board.

DATES: Thursday, October 13, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Friday, 
October 14, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Sheraton Burlington Hotel 
and Conference Center, 870 Williston Road, Burlington, Vermont, 05403, 
telephone: 802-865-6600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Shaw, Policy Advisor, Bureau 
of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20531, by telephone at (202) 514-9354, or by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e53575d565b52525b105f104d565f497e4b4d5a515410595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e9ede7ece1e8e8e1aae5aaf7ece5f3c4f1f7e0ebeeaae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The President of the United States awards 
the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor for valor by a Public Safety 
Officer. The Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board is 
authorized to carry out its advisory function under 42 U.S.C. 15202. 
The purpose of this meeting is to review applications for the 2005 
Medal of Valor Awards and to discuss upcoming activities related 
thereto.
    This meeting will be open to the public and registrations will be 
accepted on a space available basis. Members of the public who wish to 
attend the meeting must register at least five (5) days in advance of 
the meeting by contacting Ms. Shaw. Prior registration will be required 
in order to attending the meeting. All attendees will be required to 
sign in at the meeting registration desk. Please bring photo 
identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting. Anyone 
requiring special accommodations should contact Ms. Shaw at least five 
(5) days in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: September 20, 2005.
Domingo S. Herraiz,
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-19095 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>