alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. John Andrew MADDUX

278P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2017

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, For Maddux, John Andrew.

Phillip K. Woods, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2017."
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Corey J. Coughlin, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First State Financial Corporation.
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to de designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including our consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared:  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee or registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.   Date: May 10, 2005 By*: /s/ Corey J. Coughlin*   Corey J. Coughlin President and Chief Executive Officer
16
---

---

Exhibit 14.2

| |                                                                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Grant Thornton Argentina
  
  Av. Corrientes 327 piso 3°
  C1043AAD - Buenos Aires 
  Argentina
| |                                                                                                
| | T (54 11) 4105 0000
F (54 11) 4105 0100
E post@gtar.com.ar
www.gtar.com.ar                     

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We have issued our report
dated April 7, 2008, accompanying
the financial statements of Pointer
Localizacion y Asistencia S.A. included in the Annual Report of Pointer Telocation
Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2007, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report and to the use of our
name as it appears under the caption of Experts in the Registration Statement Form F-3
(No. 333-111019, 333-119998, 333-126257, 333-143399) of Pointer Telocation  Ltd. and on Form S-8 (No. 333-118897, 333-113420)
pertaining to the Employees Stock Option Plan of
Pointer Telocation Ltd.

/s/ Grant Thornton Argentina S.C.

Buenos
Aires, Argentina 
April
7, 2008


---

---
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 Pet it ion 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 conte sted

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

documents to insure the informed protecti on 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.
State of North Carolina v. Clayton James

No. 321P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

James W. Carter, Attorney at Law, Clayton James, Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Clayton.

James M. Stanley, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th 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 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 December 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Columbus SIMMONS

No. 292P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017.

Sterling Rozear, Attorney at Law, for Simmons, Walter Columbus.

Creecy C. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, C. Ricky Bowman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*148***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 28th of August 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
DECEMBER 31, 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1996
<CASH>                                         538,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               772,289
<PP&E>                                       9,798,136
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,049,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,520,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          369,531
<BONDS>                                      5,668,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,250
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,477,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,520,610
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,082,239
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,039,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             394,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                261,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   261,289
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
COURTNEY NC LLC v. BALDWIN

219P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Monette Baldwin, for Baldwin, Monette.

A. Bartlett White, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Stephanie D'Atri, Attorney at Law, for Courtney NC, LLC

The following order has been entered on the revised motion filed on the 2nd of August 2017 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion to Stay:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused
CRAZIE OVERSTOCK PROMOTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. James MCVICKER, in his personal and official capacity as Sheriff for Bladen County North Carolina; Jeffrey Tyler, in his personal and official capacity as a Captain in the Bladen County Sheriff's Department, Defendants.

No. COA16-932

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136516 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: 136516 

 COA: 275342 

Midland CC: 05-002479-FC 

DANIEL ROBERT DRYER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

judgment 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4197 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4197

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period of certain 
 authority with respect to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection 
   Board decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``All Circuit Review Extension Act''.
SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD DECISIONS 
RELATING TO WHISTLEBLOWERS.
    (a) In General.--Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.
    (b) Director Review.--Section 7703(d)(2) of such title is amended 
by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``5-year''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
----

----

----

NOTICE TO READERS

----

Corrigenda

----

Corrigendum to notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/53-62/06 to constitute a reserve of administrators (AD5) with Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovene or Slovak citizenship in the fields of European public administration, Law, Economics and Microeconomics/Business administration

(Official Journal of the European Union C 172 A of 25 July 2006)

(2006/C 240 A/01)

On page 11, under heading B, in point 1:

for:

‘The candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest overall scores in the admission tests and a pass mark in each test will be asked to submit a full application with a view to being admitted to the competition.

read:

‘The candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest overall scores in the admission tests and a pass mark in each test will be asked to submit a full application with a view to being admitted to the competition.

On page 13, under heading C, in point 1:

for:

‘The selection board will correct written tests (b) and (c) of those candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest marks and a pass mark in written test (a).

read:

‘The selection board will correct written tests (b) and (c) of those candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest marks and a pass mark in written test (a).

On page 14, under heading C, in point 2:

for:

‘2.   Oral test — marking

Once written tests (b) and (c) have been marked, the candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest overall scores in these tests (and a pass mark in each) will be admitted to oral test (d).

read:

‘2.   Oral test — marking

Once written tests (b) and (c) have been marked, the candidates (4) (see table below) who obtained the highest overall scores in these tests (and a pass mark in each) will be admitted to oral test (d).

----
<PAGE>


                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                         CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Alternative Resources Corporation:


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-88918, 33-85078 and 333-12693) on Forms S-8 of Alternative Resources
Corporation of our reports dated January 21, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Alternative Resources Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and the
related consolidated financial statement schedule, which reports are
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of Alternative Resources Corporation.

                                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 28, 1997
1507.

#### ATLANTA ICE & COAL COMPANY v. WALTON.

There was no error in overruling the certiorari.

Certiorari, from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. September 21, 1908.

Argued December 15, 1908.

Decided January 27, 1909.

*Payne & Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Moore & Branch,*contra.

Powell, J.

The record does not show the pleadings in... the justice’s court; the case is here on exceptions to the overruling of a certiorari. The plaintiff’s proof, so far as is material, is as follows: “I run a meat market on Marietta street, and have been using ice furnished by the Atlanta Coal & Ice Company, and, on or about June 15, 1907, I had an assortment of meats in my ice box, to supply my trade, and the Atlanta lee *&*Coal Company, through its agent, a negro man, on said date brought my ice as usual on said date on the wagon of the Atlanta Ice *&*Coal Company, and, in putting it into the ice box, he let a large piece of ice fall against a glass which is in said box, and broke it into small pieces, which fell on the meats which I had in said ice box and rendered *454it absolutely unsalable and dangerous to eat. The meat damaged! in said ice box was worth at the time $30.75, and the negligence-of the agent of the Atlanta Ice & Coal Company caused the loss of same.” The defendant introduced no testimony. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for $30.35. The defendant presents the point that it is not shown that the negro driver who broke the glass and injured the meat was acting within the scope of his authority at the time the damage was done; and that no negligence on his part is established. We are of the opinion that the testimony, and the inferences capable of legitimate deduction therefrom, are sufficient to justify the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed..*
STATE of North Carolina v. Kirk Deanglo EVANS

No. 256P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Evans, Kirk Deanglo.

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

Narcisa Woods, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Caroline Farmer, Deputy Director.

*683***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of July 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 1st of November 2017."
ESTATE OF Vaughn E. RUSSELL, BY AND THROUGH its administrator, Nancy E. RUSSELL, and Nancy E. Russell, individually v. Sondra Lynn RUSSELL and Janice M. Russell

No. 268P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Steven D. Starnes, Attorney at Law, Monroe, for Russell, Vaughn E. (Estate of), et al.

Sanjay R. Gohil, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Russell, Sondra Lynn, et al.

Andrea Solorzano, Attorney at Law.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of August 2017 by Plaintiffs 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 7th of December 2017."
STATE v. Marvin Everett MILLER, Jr.

217PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 15, 2017

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Miller, Marvin Everette (Jr.).

David J. Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 15th of September 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of September 2017."
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). P D M / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ES TE R B URNETT , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D O C T O R B R U C E F A E C H E R ; e t a l., D efen d an t s. N o. 08- 56887 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 2 7 4 5 - P S GM LG ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hi l i p S . G ut i e rr e z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E st erB urnett , a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng s om e butnota l l of the de f e nda nt s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983



# FI LED JAN 11 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP D M / Res ea r ch 08- 56887 2 a c tio n a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is m e d ic a l c a r e . W e di s m i s s the appe a l f

orl a c k of

appe l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on. W e h a v e a n o b lig a tio n to c o n s id e rju r is d ic tio n a l is s u e s s u as p o n te . W MX T ec hs. , Inc. v. Mi l ler , 1 0 4 F .3 d1 1 3 3 , 1 1 3 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e g e n e r a lly h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e ro n lyf in a l o r d e r s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W i tho utthe di stri ctcourt ’ s c ert i fi cat i on pu rs uantt o R ul e 54(b) of the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re , orders di sm i ss i ng som e butno tal l of the defendant s are n o t ap p e a lab le f

in a l o r d e r s . See Frank

B r is c oe C o. v . Morr is on- Knuds e n C o. , 776 F .2 d1 4 1 4 , 1 4 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ; M au re r v . L . A . C ou nt

y Sheri f f’s D ep’t , 691 F . 2d 434, 436 n. 1 ( 9th C i r . 1982) ( “ A di s m i s s a l a s t o s om e butnota l l de f e nda nt s i s not af in a l o r d e ra s r e q u ir e db y2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dis n o t ap p e a lab le ab s e n t a c e rt i f i c a t i on unde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 54( b) . ” ) . M or e ove r , a n or de rde ny i ng ap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l is n o t an ap p e a lab le f in a l o r d e r . See Kusterv. B lock , 773 F . 2d 1048, 1049 ( 9th C i r . 1985) . A c c or di ngl y , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o c ons i de rthe ap p e a l. B ec au se w e d ism iss f

o r lac ko f ju risd icti o n , w e d o n o t co n sid erB u rn ett’ s o u ts tan d in g m o tio n s . DI S MI S S E D.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Reginald Ray BYNUM, Defendant, and Roland M. Loftin, Jr., Bail Agent, and Agent Associates Insurance, L.L.C., Surety.

No. COA17-5

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.
1604.

#### Wilson *v.*The State.

Accusation of cheating and swindling, from city court of Miller county — Judge Bush. September 14, 1908.

Submitted January 26,

Decided February 9, 1909.

*B. B. Bush,*for plaintiff in error.

*N. L. Stapleton, solicitor,*contra.'

Hill, C. J.

No error of law is complained of. While the evidence is conflicting as to the fraudulent intention of the defendant in obtaining money on his contract to perform service, we can not say that the verdict is not supported by some evidence; and, the trial court being satisfied therewith, this court can not interfere. *Judgment affirmed.*