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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Civil Rights Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of membership of the USCCR Performance Review Board.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.  Publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 414(c)(4).

The PRB provides fair and impartial review to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding  performance ratings and performance awards to the Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the FY 2004 rating year.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Minor, Human Resources Assistant, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20425, (202) 376-8364.

Members: Jill M. Crumpacker, Esq., Acting Executive Director, Chief Human Capital Officer, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Robert A. Rogowsky, PhD., Director of Operations, U.S. International Trade Commission.

Karn Laney-Cummings, Director, Office of Industries, U.S. International Trade Commission.

TinaLouise Martin,

Director, Office of Management, U.S. Commission of Civil Rights.

[FR Doc. 05-19489  Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
STATE v. Jawanz BACON

266P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 4, 2017

Sarah Holladay, Attorney at Law, for Bacon, Jawanz.

James Bernier, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th of August 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Reginald Underwood FULLARD.

No. 309P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 13, 2016.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for Fullard, Reginald Underwood.

Karen A. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Reginald Fullard, For Fullard, Reginald Underwood.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st of September 2015 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 was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of January 2016."
Myrtle BARBOUR, Plaintiff, v. Staci BARBOUR (Ross), Defendant.

No. COA16-782

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald Durrant FARROW

No. 341P12-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Donald Durrant Farrow, for Farrow, Donald Durrant.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of December 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

Ervin, J. recused

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of December 2016 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136367 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136367 

 COA: 283369 

Genesee CC: 85-035677-FC 

JERRY WILSON PAGE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1020 

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
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 Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
KING v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, et al.

382PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2017

Amberley G. Hammer, Attorney at Law, for King, Desiree, et al.

Wayne M. Mansulla, Attorney at Law, for D.K. (Minor), et al.

Samuel G. Thompson, Attorney at Law, Robert E. Desmond, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Northeastern OB/GYN, LTD, et al.

Charles E. Simpson, Jr., Attorney at Law, New Bern, Jay C. Salsman, Attorney at Law, for Albemarle Hospital Authority, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of June 2017 by Wayne M. Mansulla for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of June 2017."
# C_2008313EN.01003301.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — TridonicAtco v OHIM (Intelligent Voltage Guard)

(Case T-297/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 313/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: TridonicAtco GmbH & Co. KG (Dornbirn, Austria) (represented initially by: L. Wiltschek, lawyer, later by L. Wiltschek and E. Tremmel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 May 2007 (Case R 108/2007-2) concerning an application to register the figurative mark Intelligent Voltage Guard as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders TridonicAtco & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders TridonicAtco & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2209

L. RUTHER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GETTYSBURG COLLEGE, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-1034-A) Submitted: February 22, 2002 Decided: March 15, 2002 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L. Ruther, Appellant Pro Se. Chandra Dore Lantz, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX & ALLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: L. Ruther appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing on conducted on September 14, 2000. Ruther has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Ruther has waived review of the issues on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. Keller v. Prince George’s Co. , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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
PERRY v. BRITT

225P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Adam L. Perry, for Perry, Adam L.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of July 2017 by Plaintiff to Strike and Dismiss Defendant Insufficient Defense Claim:

*400"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
Desiree King, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, G. Elvin Small, III; and Amber M. Clark, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. Albemarle Hospital Authority d/b/a Albemarle Health/Albemarle Hospital; Sentara Albemarle Regional Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Sentara Albemarle Medical Center; Northeastern Ob/Gyn, Ltd.; Barbara Ann Carter, M.D.; and Angela McWalter, CNM, Defendants.

No. COA15-1190

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
State v. Jesus Martinez

25P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 2017

Daniel M. Blau, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Robert Hale, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Martinez, Jesus.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

*101"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2017."
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v. “*John Doe ” et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Suffolk County,

October 15, 1943.

No appearances.

Wenzel, J.

The grand jury under the new section 252-c of the Code of Criminal Procedure has recommended that each of these two defendants “ be examined, investigated and tried to determine whether he should be adjudged a youthful offender ”. There seems to be some question as to whether this investigation and a subsequent trial in accordance with this section may be transferred to the County Court in the same manner as indictments may be transferred when found and filed by a Supreme Court grand jury (Code Crim. Pro. § 22). This question arises because the statute [§ 252-c] states that “ the grand jury * * * may recommend to the court for which the grand jury was drawn * * * that the defendant be examined,” et cetera. The statute then provides that in such case" the indictment be not filed. Since, under section 22, a case may not be transferred to the County Court until an indictment is filed, it would seem that the investigation and trial provided for by this law must be had in the Supreme Court. *933However, the last paragraph of the law provides: “ After an indictment has been found and during the pendency of such examination and investigation, and before a final determination. by the court, the court shall have the same powers and jurisdiction over the defendant *as though the indictment had been*filed.” (Italics supplied.) Since there can be no question of the power of this court to transfer an indictment after it has been filed, it follows that this investigation and trial may be so transferred. This interpretation of this section is borne out by the words of Governor Dewey in signing this statute: *“*The same courts which have previously handled such persons continue their jurisdiction, thus no additional expense or burden on the community is created. The experience of such courts and their personnel are still available in the treatment of the difficult problems arising from youthful offenses ”. This clearly refers to the County Court and its probationary system, which this court does not have. This court, therefore, directs that this indictment be transferred to the County Court, that the recommendation of the grand jury be conveyed to the judge of that court and that the investigation and trial proceed before him in accordance with the statute.
null

358.87625
STOKES v. CRUMPTON

168A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Kieran J. Shanahan, Attorney at Law, Christopher S. Battles, Attorney at Law, John E. Branch, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Stokes, Thomas A. (III).

K. Edward Greene, Attorney at Law, Tobias S. Hampson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Crumpton, Catherine C. (formerly Stokes).

Robert A. Ponton, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of May 2016 by Plaintiff for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

Edmunds, J. recused
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED A B UDGET TREE SERVICE, INC. , Appel lant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 433 LT Case No. 2020

- SC

- 042279

- O JOSEPH VAL IN ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed November 22, 2022 Appeal f rom t he C ounty Court for Orange County , Amy J. C arter, Jud ge. Lisa C. M c Cr ystal, of

W harton Law Group, P.A ., Oviedo, for A ppellant. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CUR IAM. AFFIRMED.

SASSO , TRAVER and NARDELLA , J J., co ncur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamison Christopher GOINS

No. 273A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed September 29, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Shawn R. Evans and Kristin J. Uicker, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State-appellant.

Drew Nelson, Raleigh, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.
1230.

#### GLEATON *v.*FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS.

A contract between employer and employee that the latter will not quit: without giving a week’s notice, and that if he does quit without giving; a week’s notice the employer shall retain a week’s wages as liquidated, damages, is reasonable and enforceable.

Certiorari, from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. May 18,, 1908.

Argued July 16, 1908.

Decided January 27, 1909.

*T. J. Ripley,*for plaintiff.

*Slaton & Phillips, Virlyn B. Moore,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

The plaintiff sued for a week’s wages earned by him in the employment of the defendant. He seeks here to review a judgment in the lower court in favor of the defendant. He had agreed, in the contract of employment, that he would not quit, work without giving his employer one week’s notice of his intention to do so, and that if he did quit without notice, his employer-should retain one week’s wages as liquidated damages. He worked throughout the week, but on Sunday was arrested, and as he naively expresses it in his testimony, did not regain his liberty until more-than two months later. As to whether he was innocent or guilty of the offense for which he was arrested, as to whether he was acquitted or convicted, there is in his testimony a silence pregnant, with an admission; for a party’s own testimony, if equivocal or uncertain, is taken most strongly against him. The contract by *421which the employer was to retain one week’s wages was not an agreement for a forfeiture, but was for liquidated damages. Such contracts are reasonable and enforceáble. *Willis*v. *Muscogee Mfg. Co.,*120 *Ga.*597 (48 S. E. 177). See also *Ga. Pac. Ry. Co.*v. *Dooley,*86 *Ga.*298 (12 S. E. 293, 12 L. R. A. 342), and cases cited; Harmon *v.*Salmon Falls, Mfg. Co., 35 Me. 447 (58 Am. Dec. 718, and notes); Timberlake *v.*Thayer, 71 Miss. 279 (14 So. 446, 24 L. R. A. 231, and notes). The servant here showed no sufficient excuse for his non-performance of his contract. Even if his arrest for an offense of which he was' not guilty would have operated to relieve him from his agreement not to quit without notice, he did not make it appear that he was improperly accused and arrested in the present ease. It did appear that he had broken his contract.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Russell, J.

I concur only because prima facie the plaintiff violated his contract. Thereupon the burden was upon him to show that his absence and consequent failure to give the notice was without fault ripon his part, and this burden he failed to carry.
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Arthur METZGER

No. 401P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

*285Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Metzger, Gary Arthur.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law.

Steven Arbogast, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of October 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 was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
# Official Journal L 19/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 19 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6421 January 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 19

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6421 January 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

| 21.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 19/1

---

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters

According to Article 3(2) of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on the service judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, (1) concluded by Council Decision 2006/326/EC of 27 April 2006 (hereafter "the Agreement"), whenever amendments to the Regulation on the service of documents are adopted, Denmark shall notify to the Commission of its decision whether or not to implement the content of such amendments.

1

Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (recast) (2) was adopted on 25 November 2020.

2

In accordance with Article 3(2) of the Agreement, Denmark has by letter of 22 December 2020 notified the Commission of its decision to implement the contents of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Agreement, the Danish notification creates mutual obligations between Denmark and the Community. Thus, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 constitutes an amendment to the Agreement and is considered annexed thereto.

In accordance with Article 3(4) of the Agreement, the necessary administrative measures enter into force on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 23.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 405, 2.12.2020, p. 40.

2

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Patrick Henry ALSTON, Defendant.

No. COA15-966.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TERRANCE POTEAT,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 406 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                      EXHIBIT 23-CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Alternative Resources Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-85078, 333-12693, 333-84967 and 333-84969) on Form S-8 of Alternative
Resources Corporation (the Company) of our reports March 23, 2001, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Alternative Resources Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows, and the related financial statement schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which reports appear
in the December 31, 2000. Form 10-K of Alternative Resources Corporation.
Our reports dated March 23, 2001 contain an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has
a net capital deficiency, which raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The consolidated financials statements and
financial statement schedule do not include any adjustments that might result
from the outcome of that uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 17, 2001.