alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of North Carolina v. Jonathan James Newell

No. 256P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Jonathan James Newell, Pro Se.

Ms. Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of October 2016 by Defendant for Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the second petition filed by Defendant on the 19th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

336 

KA 08-02090 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERYL BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY A. GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R.

Schwartz, A.J.), rendered June 23, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Brown ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___

[Mar. 16, 2012]). 

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Taylor Pruitt ROBERSON

No. COA16-939

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

NO ERROR.
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  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trai Thien USA Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haley Manchester, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: May 24, 2010/s/ Haley ManchesterHaley Manchester
Chief Executive Officer
COLUMBUS COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES, EX. REL.; Tiffanee A. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. Calvin T. NORTON, Defendant.

No. COA16-735

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

DISMISSED.
Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this Report.
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;
 4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures
presented in this Report are conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal
control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of
Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation or
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely effect the
Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 24, 2010
    /s/ William ODowd IVWilliam ODowd IVChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and 
Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6827
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN NEAL HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-96-313, CA-97-3149-WMN) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Neal Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harris , Nos. CR-96-313; CA-97-3149-WMN (D. Md. May 8, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                             TECHFORCE CORPORATION
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                              1996 - EXHIBIT 11.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        1996        1995        1994
                                                     ----------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                                  <C>         <C>         <C>
Primary:
     Weighted average shares outstanding...........   7,931,554   2,950,768   2,733,615
     Net effect of dilutive securities,
       based on the treasury stock and
       if-converted methods........................     403,504     475,933     340,428
     Shares of preferred stock assumed issued
       the conversion from redeemable convertible
       preferred stock upon completion of
       public offering.............................           0   2,839,566   2,839,566
                                                     ----------  ----------  ----------
Total shares used in computation...................   8,335,058   6,266,267   5,913,609

Net income.........................................  $2,323,100  $1,010,690  $  771,475
Net income per common and common
     equivalent share..............................  $     0.28  $     0.16  $     0.13


Fully diluted:
     Weighted average shares outstanding...........   7,931,554   2,950,768   2,733,615
     Net effect of dilutive securities, based
       on the treasury stock and if-converted
       methods.....................................     403,504     475,933     340,428
       the conversion from redeemable convertible
       preferred stock upon completion of
       public offering.............................           0   2,839,566   2,839,566
                                                     ----------  ----------  ----------
Total shares used in computation...................   8,335,058   6,266,267   5,913,609

Net income.........................................  $2,323,100  $1,010,690  $  771,475
Net income per common and common
     equivalent share..............................  $     0.28  $     0.16        0.13
 </TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56899-56900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19504]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 24, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Penn Bancshares, Inc., Pennsville, New Jersey; to acquire 24.89 
percent of

[[Page 56900]]

the voting shares of Harvest Community Bank, Pennsville, New Jersey.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Integrity First Bancorporation, Inc.,Wausau, Wisconsin; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting 
shares of Integrity First Bank, Wausau, Wisconsin (in organization).
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Patriot Bancshares, Inc. (currently named Quadco Bancshares, 
Inc.), Ladonia, Texas; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Patriot Bank, Houston, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 26, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19504 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132042 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132042 

 COA: 247391 

Jackson CC: 02-002915-FC 

KATHERINE SUE DENDEL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this 

order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in 

their application papers. 

p0130 

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. 

February 2, 2007 

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Lenwood Lee PAIGE

No. 186P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Mr. Lenwood Lee Paige, for Paige, Lenwood Lee

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of June 2017 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:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of June 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Hudson, J., recused
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00006-CV

Rosa Mendez

v.

Javier Salinas and Antara Trucking, L.L.C.

On appeal from the

398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-5062-14-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 14, 2018
**Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 – Dimos Peramatos v Commission**

**(Case T-312/07)**

Financial contribution granted for an environmental project – LIFE – Decision to recover in part the amount paid out – Determination of the obligations of the recipient undertaken in the financed project – Legitimate expectations – Duty to state reasons

1.                     *European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the administration
– Financial aid granted for an environmental project – Decision to effect partial recovery of the amount paid, determined
after a technical check carried out after the accounting check by the Commission – Knowledge of the person concerned – No
infringement of the principle (Council Regulation No 1973/92) (see paras 50-52, 57, 64-67)*

2.                     *Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Grant of Community financial assistance – Conditions –
Compliance with the terms set out by the Commission and those in the application for assistance – Reduction of the amount
of the financial assistance approved in the initial budget where that obligation infringed (Council Regulation No 1973/92)
(see para. 73)*

3.                     *Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing granted for national projects – Obligation on applicants
for and beneficiaries of financial assistance to provide information and to cooperate – Scope (Council Regulation No 1973/92)
(see para. 75)*

4.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (see paras 113-118)*

5.                     *Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Action brought against a Commission decision partially to recover
an amount paid for carrying out an environmental project – No unlimited jurisdiction (see para. 121)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment or, in the alternative, amendment of Decision E (2005) 5361 of the Commission of 7 December 2005 relating to Debit Note No 3240504536 which was issued to the Dimos Peramatos (Municipality of Perama) to recover the financial contribution which had been paid by the Commission in the context of the subsidy granted to the Dimos Peramatos by Commission Decision C(97)/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Dimos Peramatos to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to interim proceedings. |
United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

Nos. 97-30214, 97-30244.

SEALED APPELLEES, Third Party Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

SEALED APPELLANTS, Third Party Defendants-Appellants.

In re Moise S. STEEG, Jr. and Steeg & O'Connor, Petitioners.

April 18, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We are not persuaded that the discovery order entered by the district court and contested

here is an appealable order. Nor can we conclude that this order compelling production of the

documents meets the demanding standard for issuing a writ of mandamus. The preferable practice

in factual patterns, such as here, is for the court to examine a sufficient number of the contested

documents to insure the informed protection of the privilege protecting the thought processes of an

attorney. That examination can be conducted by the court or a special master or magistrate judge

as the district court may choose.

We dismiss the appeal and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also stay the order

of production pending further order of the district court. Our stay left, as it is, in the control of the

district court is to allow the in camera examination of documents the district court may order.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied. The production order at issue is stayed pending further order of the district court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 18, 2020 No. 04-19-00753-CR Paul PESINA , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-10-161-CRW Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant's pro se motion requesting a bench warrant is DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of November, 2020.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 April 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐287/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Public contracts – Directive 2004/17/EC – Procedures for the award of contracts in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors – Incorrect or incomplete transposition – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States (Art. 249 EC) (see paras 67-69)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by Member States – Need for clear and precise transposition (Art. 249
EC) (see para. 98)*

3.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 187)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, |

–        by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose completely and correctly Article
1(2)(b); the second subparagraph of Article 1(2)(c), Article 1(2)(d); the second subparagraph of Article 1(13); Article 14(4);
Article 17(10)(a) and (c); Article 34(8), Article 36(2); Article 39(2); Article 45(1) and (3)(a) and (c); Article 48(1) to
(4) and (6)(c); the second indent of Article 49(2); Article 49(3) to (5); the first subparagraph of Article 50(1)(c); Article 52(1);
the second subparagraph of Article 57(1)(d) and (e); the first sentence of Article 57(3), and Article 65(2) of Directive 2004/17/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating
in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, and

–        by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Article 9, Article 34(2), Article 52(3) and the second sentence of Article 57(3) of Directive 2004/17,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

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