alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Kenneth Earl ROBINSON

200P07-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Kenneth Earl Robinson, for Robinson, Kenneth E.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4091 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4091

To authorize Members of Congress to bring an action for declaratory and 
 injunctive relief in response to a written statement by the President 
 or any other official in the executive branch directing officials of 
        the executive branch to not enforce a provision of law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2014

 Mr. Poe of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize Members of Congress to bring an action for declaratory and 
 injunctive relief in response to a written statement by the President 
 or any other official in the executive branch directing officials of 
        the executive branch to not enforce a provision of law.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Constitutional Check and Balance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING CAUSE OF ACTION BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN RESPONSE 
              TO WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHER EXECUTIVE 
              BRANCH OFFICIAL DIRECTING EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS TO 
              NOT ENFORCE A LAW.

    (a) Cause of Action Authorized.--If the President or any other 
official in the executive branch issues a memorandum or other written 
statement directing any official in the executive branch to not enforce 
a provision of law, a Member of Congress who meets the criteria 
described in subsection (b) may bring an action for declaratory or 
injunctive relief in an appropriate United States district court to 
compel such official to enforce that provision of law.
    (b) Criteria for Eligibility.--A Member of Congress meets the 
criteria described in this subsection with respect to a provision of 
law if the Member cast a recorded vote on final passage of the version 
of the bill or joint resolution which was enacted into law and included 
that provision.
                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136820 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136820 

 COA: 281479 

Oakland CC: 2007-214517-FH 

ALBERT NORMAN BAYER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 15, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the portion of the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals that states that medical testimony is required in all prosecutions under MCL 

750.520b(1)(f)(iv). People v Baisden, __ Mich __ (Docket No. 136321, decided 

September 26, 2008). In all other respects, the application is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0923 

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. 

September 26, 2008 

Clerk
Jacqueline Renee CROCKER v. Transylvania County Department of Social Services Director Tracy JONES

No. 140P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Sean F. Perrin, Attorney at Law, Jackson R. Price, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Jones, Tracy (Director).

Donald H. Barton, Attorney at Law, Brevard, for Crocker, Jacqueline Renee.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of April 2017 by Respondent 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 1st of November 2017."
# Official Journal C 68A/24 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 68A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6624 February 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 68A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6624 February 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2023/C 68 A/01 | Recruitment notice PE/281/S/FINS – Business analysts – SAP (AD 6 and AD 9) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2023/C 68 A/01

Recruitment notice PE/281/S/FINS – Business analysts – SAP (AD 6 and AD 9)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1722

In Re: TIMOTHY LAMONT RUFF, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(4:96-cr-00056-LHT-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Timothy Lamont Ruff, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Timothy Lamont Ruff petitions for a writ of mandamus 

requesting that this court direct his release from prison based 

on his claim that the United States lacked jurisdiction to 

prosecute him. We conclude that Ruff is not entitled to 

mandamus relief. 

 Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. 

In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). 

 The relief sought by Ruff is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
No. 17,507.

#### J. W. Duff *v.*George R. McCormack, as Chief Building Inspector of the City and County of Denver.

(281 P. [2d] 159)

Decided March 14, 1955.

Rehearing denied April 4, 1955.

Mr. John J. Morrissey, Mr. Charles A. Murdock, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. John C. Banks, Mr. Earl T. Thrasher, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamonte Dion BAKER

No. 4P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Jamonte Dion Baker, For Baker, Jamonte Dion.

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

Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For the State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 2nd of October 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

*694The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of October 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
Roger Brandon PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. Sharetta JONES, Defendant.

No. COA17-445

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shaun Antonio LINDSEY

No. COA17-218

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 15, 2017

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Report of Radial Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G. Leigh Lyons, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to
      Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





ii.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Radial Energy, Inc. and will be retained
      by
      Radial Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.







Date: May 15, 2007
            /s/
                G. LEIGH LYONS
              ______________________________
              Name:
                G. Leigh Lyons
              Title:
                Chief Executive Officer
State of North Carolina v. Tishekka Nicole Cain

No. 322P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

James R. Parish, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Cain, Tishekka Nicole.

Lars F. Nance, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of August 2016 by Defendant 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 *326was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2016 by Defendant to Deem Petition for Discretionary Review Timely Filed:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2016 by Defendant in the Alternative to Treat Petition for Discretionary Review as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, David E. Fractor, hereby certify that the April
30, 2009 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as filed by iDcentrix, Inc. (the
“Company”), which contains the Company’s financial statements, 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 that the information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  June
      22, 2009
            /s/ David
      E. FractorDavid
      E. FractorChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 WCA Waste Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Tom J. Fatjo, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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.



                                          /s/ Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Tom J. Fatjo, Jr.
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 13, 2005







The foregoing certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section
18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that
the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4315 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication on 

the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered 

species or threatened species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

BISHOP of Utah, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HUIZENGA

of Michigan, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. VALADAO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened 

species, 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 ‘‘21st Century Endan5 gered Species Transparency Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4315 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH ON THE INTERNET THE 

2 BASIS FOR LISTINGS. 

3 Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (16 

4 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(9) The Secretary shall make publicly available on 

7 the Internet the best scientific and commercial data avail8 able that are the basis for each regulation, including each 

9 proposed regulation, promulgated under subsection 

10 (a)(1).’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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. 07-11226

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE VELIZ, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-167-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Veliz, Jr., has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Veliz 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
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 23 2 . J ARVI S W ARE v . W HI TFI ELD SUPERI OR COURT.

On Au g u s t 1 1
, 20 1 7
, t h e s u p eri o r co u rt en t ered a n o rd er d en y in g fi l i n g o f a

m an d am u s p et it i o n s u bm i tt ed b y p ri s o n er J arv i s W are. 1 W are fi l ed an ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

ap peal o n No v em

b er 6 , 2 0 1 7

. 2 W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i on

. To b e t i m el y , a d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i o n m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 30 d ay s o f en t ry

o f t h e ord er t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u irem en ts o f OCGA § 5 -6

- 3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al
, an d t hi s Co u rt can no t accep t an ap pl i cat io n fo r ap p eal n o t m ad e i n co m p l i an ce t h erewi t h. Bo

yl e v. St a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. A pp

. 7 34
, 7 34 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9 ).
Becau s e t h i s ap p l i c a t i o n w as fi l ed 8 7 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er W are s eek s to

ap p eal
, i t is u n t i m el y , an d we l ack j u ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s i d er i t

. A cco rd i n g l y , t h i s
ap p li cat io n i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Th e o rd er co n tai n s a s cri v en er’ s erro r. Al t h o u g h t h e cap t i o n o f t h e o rd er

s u g g es t s i t i s an o rd er d en yi n g f i l i n g o f a p et i t i o n fo r a wri t o f h ab eas co rp u s , t h e

o rd er act ual l y

d en i es fi l i n g o f W are’ s m an d am u s p et i t io n

.

2 W are fi l ed t h e ap p li cat i o n fo r d i scret i o nary ap p eal i n t h e S u p r e m e Co u rt , wh i ch t ran s ferred t h e m at ter t o t h i s Co u rt

. January 11, 2018

01/11/2018
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1


CERTAIN COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT 
ARRANGEMENTS WITH 
HEALTH NET, INC.’S 
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED ON JULY 18, 2014 
Upon recommendation of the Governance Committee of the Board of Directors of Health Net, Inc. (the “Company”), the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) has approved the following compensation and benefit arrangements with each non-employee director of the Board in respect of his/her service on the Board: 
		
	•
	an annual retainer of $65,000 per year for each non-employee director; 


		
	•
	an annual retainer of $10,000 per year for the Chair of each of the Compensation Committee, Governance Committee and Finance Committee; 


		
	•
	an annual retainer of $15,000 for the Chair of the Audit Committee; 


		
	•
	meeting fee of $2,000 for each meeting of the Board of Directors attended, and a $1,000 fee for each committee meeting attended, other than the Audit Committee, which meeting fee is $2,000 for each audit committee meeting attended; 


		
	•
	in lieu of the above listed retainer and meeting fees, the Chairman of the Board receives $20,000 per month for his services; 


		
	•
	reimbursement of customary expenses for attending Board, committee and shareholder meetings; and 


		
	•
	optional medical, dental and vision coverage for non-employee directors and their eligible dependents, which directors can continue to utilize following their retirement from the Board. Non-employee directors will pay monthly premiums for any such coverage they elect at the same rates paid by Company employees without taking into account the Company’s subsidization of employees’ monthly premiums.




Furthermore, the Company maintains a deferred compensation plan pursuant to which non-employee directors are eligible to defer up to 100% of their compensation. The compensation deferred under such plan is credited with earnings or losses measured by the rate of return on investments elected by plan participants. Each plan participant is fully vested in all deferred compensation and earnings credited to his or her account.
In addition, the non-employee directors of the Company are eligible to participate in the Company’s 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). Under the Plan, non-employee directors receive an initial grant of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) when they join the Company’s Board and automatic annual grants of RSUs for each year such director is re-elected to the Company’s Board (the number of RSUs to be granted is determined pursuant to grant formula provisions approved by the Board of Directors). Each RSU grant vests as to 331/3% of the shares each year on the anniversary of the date of the grant, provided that the RSUs become immediately vested in the event of a “change in control” of the Company, as defined in the Plan.  Upon vesting, the non-employee director is entitled to receive the number of shares of Common Stock underlying the vested portion of the RSU.  Each non-employee director may elect to defer the distribution of shares underlying the vested RSU in accordance with deferral procedures established by the Company.