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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6544

JAMES DEAN EAKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA COMBINED RECORDS; NORTH CAROLINA PAROLE

COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:02-ct-00782-BO)

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

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Dean Eaker, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, Assistant

Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Dean Eaker appeals district court order denying his

motion for leave to file an amended complaint and his Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district

court. See Eaker v. North Carolina Combined Records, No.

5:02-ct-00782-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 17, 2008; entered Mar. 18,

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
# C_2008022EN.01002101.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Janssen Cilag SA, Pfizer SA v Belgian State — Intervener: Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA

(Case C-471/07)

(2008/C 22/40)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Janssen Cilag SA, Pfizer SA

Applicants:

Defendant: Belgian State

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) to be understood as meaning only review as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a price freeze? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) to be understood as meaning only review as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a price freeze?

1

| 2. | May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends, such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must it be based on more specific criteria? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends, such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must it be based on more specific criteria?

---

(1)  OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.

1

---
* 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. 08-10020

In The Matter Of: RICHARD D. MORGAN

Debtor

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

8400 NW EXPRESSWAY LLC

Appellant

v.

RICHARD D. MORGAN

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:07-CV-801

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard D. Morgan filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claiming $37 million in

debts. One of his debtors, Appellant 8400 NW Expressway LLC, objected to

Morgan’s discharge on the ground, inter alia, that he failed to keep or preserve

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10020

2

records from which his financial condition might be ascertained as required by

11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) (2005). We affirm the overruling of this objection.

The bankruptcy judge conducted a lengthy hearing in which Morgan

testified extensively. She found his testimony credible. Following the hearing

and argument by the parties, the bankruptcy judge entered a detailed opinion

addressing Appellant’s contentions and overruling its objections to Morgan’s

discharge. The district court affirmed.

We have carefully reviewed the pertinent portions of the record, and we

have considered the parties’ briefs and their thorough and well-presented

arguments. We conclude that the bankruptcy judge ultimately applied the

correct standard of law. Her factual findings are subject to review for clear

error. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Acosta (In re Acosta), 406 F.3d 367, 372 (5th

Cir. 2005). Although Appellant established that some records were missing, the

bankruptcy judge found that the records were not necessary to establish

Morgan’s financial condition. She also found in the alternative that Morgan was

justified in failing to keep or preserve these records. We conclude that the

bankruptcy judge, who is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses

and assess the missing records in light of the overall financial picture of the

debtor, did not make any relevant findings that were clearly erroneous. We

agree with the district court’s conclusions of law. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court affirming the bankruptcy

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Glenwood Earl DOWNEY

85A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 10, 2017

Michele Goldman, Attorney at Law, for Downey, Glenwood Earl.

Richard E. Slipsky, Special Deputy Attorney General, Scott T. Stroud, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of May 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of May 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of May 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
ELI GLOBAL, LLC, et al. v. HEAVNER

12PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2017

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Kendal B. Reed, Attorney at Law, for Eli Global, LLC, et al.

James H. Hughes, Attorney at Law, Richard M. Hutson, II, Attorney at Law, Durham, Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, Hampton Y. Dellinger, Attorney at Law, for Heavner, James A.

Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Mark J. Prak, Attorney at Law, Timothy Nelson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC Association of Broadcasters, et al.

Stuart M. Paynter, Attorney at Law, Celeste H. G. Boyd, Attorney at Law, Hillsborough, for Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of June 2017 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2017."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 19th day of July 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
William SHANNON, M.D. v. Bob TESTEN, Joseph P. Jordan, and North Carolina Physicians Health Program, Inc.

No. 372P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Shannon, William (M.D.).

Michael E. Weddington, Raleigh, for Testen, Bob, et al.

Robert E. Desmond, Raleigh.

Ginger B. Hunsucker, Raleigh, for Testen, Bob, et al.

Beth R. Fleishman, Raleigh.

Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of November 2015 by Plaintiff 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 28th of January 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              50
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                     20,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,343
<PP&E>                                          11,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,508
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,416
<CGS>                                           17,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    665
<INCOME-TAX>                                       261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .098
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4038 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain improvements 

in the information technology of the Veterans Benefits Administration 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs to process claims more efficiently, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Mr. FLORES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain 

improvements in the information technology of the Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs to process claims more efficiently, 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 ‘‘Veterans Benefits Ad5 ministration Information Technology Improvement Act of 

6 2014’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4038 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OF 

2 THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 

3 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF4 FAIRS. 

5 (a) PROCESSING OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL ASSIST6 ANCE CLAIMS.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, 

7 to the maximum extent possible, make such changes and 

8 improvements to the information technology system of the 

9 Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of 

10 Veterans Affairs to ensure that— 

11 (1) to the maximum extent possible, all original 

12 and supplemental claims for educational assistance 

13 under chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code, 

14 are adjudicated electronically; and 

15 (2) rules-based processing is used to make deci16 sions with respect to such claims with little human 

17 intervention. 

18 (b) VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION CLAIMS.—The 

19 Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall reduce redundancy and 

20 inefficiencies in the use of information technology to proc21 ess claims for rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 

22 of title 38, United States Code, by— 

23 (1) ensuring that payments of subsistence al24 lowance for veterans participating in a rehabilitation 

25 program under such chapter are only processed and 

26 paid out of one corporate information technology 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4038 IH

1 system, in order to eliminate the redundancy of mul2 tiple information technology payment systems; and 

3 (2) enhancing the information technology sys4 tem supporting veterans participating in such a pro5 gram to support more accurate accounting of serv6 ices and outcomes for such veterans. 

7 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

9 Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the changes 

10 made pursuant to the requirements os subsections (a) and 

11 (b). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EX-4.12



 Exhibit 4.12 
 July 30, 2014 
 Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, NE 

Washington, D.C. 20549 
  

	 	 Re:
	 Worthington Industries, Inc. – Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 



- SEC File No. 1-8399 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Worthington Industries, Inc., an Ohio
corporation, is today filing its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 (the “Form 10-K”). 
 None of (i) Worthington Industries, Inc., (ii) any of the consolidated subsidiaries of Worthington Industries, Inc. or (iii) Worthington Armstrong Venture, a 50%-owned unconsolidated joint
venture (in the form of a general partnership between Armstrong Ventures, Inc., a subsidiary of Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and The Worthington Steel Company (Delaware), a subsidiary of Worthington Industries, Inc.), for which financial
statements are required to be filed with the Form 10-K, has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K, under which the total amount
of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of Worthington Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, Worthington Industries,
Inc. hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of Worthington Industries, Inc. or (ii) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of
a consolidated subsidiary of Worthington Industries, Inc. or (iii) the rights of holders of the long-term debt of Worthington Armstrong Venture, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Form 10-K.

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.

	
	 /s/ B. Andrew Rose

	 B. Andrew Rose
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form
10-Q), I, Peter Papano, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ PETER PAPANO                     
|Peter Papano                         
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|November 4, 2005
James T. GROSSLIGHT, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and Eugene Conti, in his former official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles and Michael Robertson, in his former official capacity as Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Ronald Gene Kaylor, in his former official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Jack D. Coltrane, in his former official capacity as Director of the North Carolina License and Theft Bureau, Timothy I. Hickman, in his former official capacity as the District Supervisor of District 2 of the North Carolina License and Theft Bureau, Dean Mackey, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Assistant District Supervisor of District 2 of the North Carolina License and Theft Bureau, Paul Graham, in his individual and official capacity, as Inspector of [the] License and Theft Bureau, Jeffrey R. Zimmerman, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Inspector of the License and Theft Bureau, and Deputy Stacey Sanders, in her individual capacity and official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff of the Cumberland County Sheriff [']s Office, Defendants.

No. COA16-983

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 2, 2017

DISMISSED.
In re: Michelin North America, Inc.

171P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Alexander P. Sands, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, David S. Pokela, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Michelin North America, Inc.

Ronald L. Gibson, Attorney at Law, for Mecklenburg County.

Kenneth R. Murphy, III, Attorney at Law, Allison Pope Cooper, Attorney at Law, Wilson, for Wake County.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of May 2016 by Wake County for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2085
FRED WOMBLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLARKSBURG POST O FFICE; CLARKSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-154-1) Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred Womble, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days, if the United States is a party, within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on September 27, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on August 11, 1997, which isbeyond the appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
 MOODY’S CORPORATION 

CAREER TRANSITION PLAN 
 The final paragraph of Section 1.3 of the Moody’s Corporation Career Transition Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the date this Second Amendment is adopted: 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an “Eligible Employee” shall not include any individual: (A) (i) designated by the
Participating Company as a casual, seasonal, hourly, temporary, or limited duration employee; (ii) designated by the Participating Company as a leased employee; (iii) designated by the Participating Company as an “independent
contractor”; or (iv) as to whom the Participating Company does not withhold income taxes; any such individual shall not be an Eligible Employee even if he or she is later retroactively reclassified or recharacterized as a common-law
employee of the Participating Company during all or any part of such period pursuant to applicable law or otherwise; (B) who pursuant to an individual employment contract, offer letter or otherwise is or may be entitled to receive severance
from the Participating Company other than pursuant to this Plan and does not waive and relinquish that entitlement in a writing that is in form and substance satisfactory to the Participating Company; or (C) who is otherwise designated by the
management of the Participating Company (in its sole discretion) to be ineligible to participate in the Plan.
STATE of North Carolina v. Richard Jackson HALL.

No. 382P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Richard Jackson Flail, for Flail, Richard Jackson.

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

Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 28th of January 2016."
HARRIS v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

110A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 19, 2017

Tamika L. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department Of Public Safety.

Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, for Harris, Steven.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 18th of April 2017 by Respondent:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of April 2017."

Respondent shall have up to and including the 8th day of June 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.