alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Rayford Lewis BURKE

181A93-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 20, 2016

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Burke, Rayford Lewis.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mikko Red Arrow, Assistant *254District Attorney, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, James Coleman, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, for ACLU Capital Punishment Project, et al.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of October 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of October 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 23rd day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.

Ervin, J. recused.
STATE v. Robert Wayne SMITH

50P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Robert Wayne Smith, For Smith, Robert Wayne.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to the Denial of Writ of Mandamus:

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

Hudson, J. and Ervin, J. recused
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  133,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,828
<PP&E>                                       7,115,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,427,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,828,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,828,792
<SALES>                                        739,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               749,131
<CGS>                                          196,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  560,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            189,011
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   189,011
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01042902.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/429

---

(2004/C 78 E/0449)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2791/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Problem of double accounting in emissions trading

Subject:

From 2008 national AAU (BSA) amount will be adjusted to take account of cross-border transfers of emission allowances so as to ensure that a selling country's AAU (BSA) amount is decreased and that of the buying country increased by the quantity transferred. The selling country's authorities will correspondingly have that much less to allocate in the next emissions trading period. Given that the authorities presumably cannot treat firms differently, according to whether they sell emission allowances within their home country or beyond its borders, a seller's emission allowance in the next period should logically be reduced in every case. This would also be consistent with the principle that emission reductions should be taken into account only once.

However, a firm can choose between the strategies of selling and banking emission allowances so as to derive greatest benefit. If a firm is able to bank its emission allowance in order to secure a better (or unchanged) share in the next period, the authorities should treat firms which have banked emission allowances and firms which have sold them in the same way and hence in both cases deduct the amounts sold or banked from their new initial allocations (unless allowances have been banked purely because of fluctuations in a firm's output for reasons related to the business cycle). Otherwise it would be in a firm's interest to postpone selling and bank emission allowances, in which case it would obtain twice as much to sell in the next period.

Does the Commission see a problem as regards equal treatment of firms? Should the Member States all give instructions for the amounts of emission allowances banked or sold to be deducted from the next allocations for the firms concerned, thus ensuring that the problem of double accounting would not arise? Should this matter be raised when the directive is reviewed?

---
# C_2008223EN.01005802.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/58

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2008 — Elini v OHIM — Rolex (Elini)

(Case T-67/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 223/103)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4053 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4053

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to establish standards for the provision of mammograms 
    at health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2014

 Mrs. Negrete McLeod introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to establish standards for the provision of mammograms 
    at health care facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``VA Timely Mammogram Results Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR PROVISION OF MAMMOGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following section:
``Sec. 1720H. Standards for providing results of mammograms at 
              Department facilities
    ``The Secretary shall establish standards with respect to the 
timeliness of providing to patients the results of mammograms performed 
at a facility of a Department and reporting such results. In 
establishing such standards, the Secretary shall take into 
consideration the best practices of the private sector.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding after the item relating to section 
1720G the following new item:

``1720H. Standards for providing results of mammograms at Department 
                            facilities.''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|   | August 14, 2009 | August 14, 2009 |
|--------|-----------------|-----------------|

 

| * * | ***/s/ Jeffrey L. Minch*** | ***/s/ Richard S. Chilinski*** |
|----------|----------------------------|--------------------------------|

|   | President and Chief | Executive Officer | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|---------------------|-------------------|-------------------------|
MCLEOD v. DUKES et al.

S17A0703

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: May 15, 2017

**PER CURIAM**.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur.*
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4200 

AN ACT 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent 

duplicative regulation of advisers of small business investment companies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4200 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SBIC Advisers Relief 

3 Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS. 

5 Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

6 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(l)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘No investment adviser’’ and in8 serting the following: 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No investment adviser’’; 

10 and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(2) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

13 subsection, a venture capital fund includes an entity 

14 described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of sub15 section (b)(7) (other than an entity that has elected 

16 to be regulated or is regulated as a business develop17 ment company pursuant to section 54 of the Invest18 ment Company Act of 1940).’’. 

19 SEC. 3. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS. 

20 Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

21 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(m)) is amended by adding at the 

22 end the following: 

23 ‘‘(3) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

24 subsection, the assets under management of a pri25 vate fund that is an entity described in subpara26 graph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other 
3 

•HR 4200 EH

1 than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 

2 regulated as a business development company pursu3 ant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 

4 1940) shall be excluded from the limit set forth in 

5 paragraph (1).’’. 

6 SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW. 

7 Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act 

8 of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3a(b)(1)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

10 the end; 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

12 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

13 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(C) that is not registered under section 

15 203 because that person is exempt from reg16 istration as provided in subsection (b)(7) of 

17 such section, or is a supervised person of such 

18 person.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 2, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4200 

AN ACT 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to 

business investment companies. prevent duplicative regulation of advisers of small
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.04

               SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Second Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement ("Second
Amendment") is made and entered into this the 1st day of April, 2001, by and
between QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP., a North Carolina Corporation (hereinafter
the "Company"), and DENNIS B. GILLINGS, PH.D. (hereinafter the "Executive").

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an Executive
Employment Agreement dated February 22, 1994 (the "Employment Agreement"), a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein, as
amended by Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement dated October 26, 1999
("First Amendment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Company and Executive further desire to amend the
Employment Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth
herein, the legal sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1. The Employment Agreement is amended by deleting the term "Chief
Executive Officer" from Sections 1, 4(c) and 4(f) and related references to that
term.

         2. Also, the Employment Agreement is amended by changing all references
to "Chairman of the Board" to "Executive Chairman."

         3. Except as herein set forth, the Employment Agreement and First
Amendment are not modified or amended and the parties hereto reaffirm and agree
to all of the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement and First
Amendment, as herein amended, in all respects.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to
Executive Employment Agreement as of the day and year first written above.

                                            QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP.



                                            By: /s/ Beverly L. Rubin
                                               ------------------------------
                                            Name:  Beverly L. Rubin
                                            Title: VP, Global HR Ops and Assoc.
                                                   Gen'l Counsel

                                                 /s/ Dennis B. Gillings
                                                 -----------------------------
                                                     DENNIS B. GILLINGS
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Pehong Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the "Company"), and Shin-Yuan Tzou, the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Annual Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 5thday of March, 2010.
 /s/  Pehong ChenPehong Chen
Chief Executive Officer
 
  /s/  Shin-Yuan TzouShin-Yuan Tzou
Chief Financial Officer
 
 This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of BroadVision, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. Carrie J. TUCKER.

No. 470P14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Public Safety.

*896Glenn A. Barfield, Goldsboro, for Tucker, Carrie J.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of July 2015 by Petitioner (Respondent below) 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 17th of March 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3804 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3804

To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
         for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 23, 2013

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 
         for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND RETAINER PAY 
              AMOUNTS FOR RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES UNDER AGE 
              62.

    Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is hereby 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
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 and

find 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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136650 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136650 

 COA: 283345 

Wayne CC: 04-006917-01

DEONO TERRELL ABRAM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1020 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Mary N. GURGANUS v. Charles M. GURGANUS

No. 99P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

James W. Lea, III, Attorney at Law, Paige Elizabeth Inman, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Gurganus, Charles M.

Mark E. Sullivan, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Ashley L. Oldham, Attorney at Law, for Gurganus, Mary N.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th of March 2017 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 8th of June 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4124 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles adjudicated 

in Federal delinquency proceedings are not subject to solitary confinement while committed to juvenile facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DANNY

K. DAVIS of Illinois, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles adjudicated in Federal delinquency proceedings are 

not subject to solitary confinement while committed to 

juvenile facilities. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Youth from 

5 Solitary Confinement Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4124 IH

1 SEC. 2. JUVENILES ADJUDICATED IN FEDERAL DELIN2 QUENCY PROCEEDINGS NOT SUBJECT TO 

3 SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WHILE COMMITTED 

4 TO JUVENILE FACILITIES. 

5 Section 5039 of title 18, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) by adding ‘‘No juvenile in Federal custody 

8 held in juvenile facilities may be subject to solitary 

9 confinement.’’ at the end of the second undesignated 

10 paragraph; and 

11 (2) by inserting after the second undesignated 

12 paragraph the following: 

13 ‘‘Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal 

14 year, the Director of the Board of Prisons shall submit 

15 to the President and Congress a report with respect to 

16 the preceding fiscal year. The report shall contain a de17 tailed summary and analysis of the most recent data re18 garding the rate at which juveniles are subject to solitary 

19 confinement and the trends demonstrated by the data de20 scribed in the next sentence. The data referred to in the 

21 preceding sentence are, for each juvenile who was subject 

22 to solitary confinement during the period to which the re23 port pertains, the types of offenses for which the juvenile 

24 is incarcerated, the race, gender, and age of the juvenile, 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4124 IH

1 how many hours the juvenile was subject to solitary con2 finement; and the purpose for the solitary confinement.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS