alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NC Department of Transportation v. Mission Battleground Park, DST, et al.

361PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Bruce P. Ashley, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Patrick M. Kane, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Mission Battleground Park, DST, et al.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General, Phyllis A. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for NC Department of Transportation.

Patrick M. Kane, Greensboro.

Garth Dunklin, Attorney at Law, for James F. Collins

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 15th of November 2016 by James F. Collins for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within *212the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
1 cv In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 249

- C V



### ____________________

CARLOS A. DURAN
, Appellant

V.

BRAD LIVINGSTON , ET AL.
, Appellee s

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 411th District Court

Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No

. CIV28366

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos A. Duran filed a suit against Brad Livingston in his official capacity

as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

, and

Department employees Brenda D. Spitaleri, Vera S. Fox, Helen E. Sheffield, and

Micha el J. Butcher , in which Duran alleged that his photograph album had been

confiscated illegally and he had exhausted his administrative remedies

. The trial

court dismissed the suit and Duran filed a notice of appeal

.2 The brief of the appellant was due to be filed on or before October 3 , 2014,

but Duran did not file a brief. On October 6 , 2014 , we notified the parties that the

brief had not been filed and warned the appellant that his failure to file a brief

could result in a dismissal of the appeal for wan t of prosecution

. O n November 18

,

201 4 , we notified the parties that the appeal would be submitted to the Court

without briefs and without oral argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 9, 2014 Opinion Delivered December 18, 2014

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Interim Decision #2302

MATTER OF MANALO In Exclusion Proceedings A-19257498 Decided by Board July 3, 1974 Request for permission to withdraw his application for admission, made following the entry of an exclusion order and during the pendency of appeal to the Board, is denied an applicant found excludable on the ground he obtained his visa by misrepresenting material facts. EXCLUDABLE.% Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(19) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)J—Procured visa by misrepresenting material facts.

. Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20)1—Immigrant alien

not in possession of immigrant visa. ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Dan F. Danilov, Esquire 3828 Seattle-First National Bank Building Seattle, Washington 98154During the pendency of this appeal from an exclusion order, applicant's counsel wrote us under date of June 5, 1974 that the applicant "has requested departure from the United States on June 5, 1974 and he has arranged to pay for the transportation costs out of his own funds." Enclosed was a request for dismissal of the appeal "for the reason that the applicant wishes to withdraw his Application for Admission into the United States and return to the Republic of the Philippines as soon as possible." We are informed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the applicant departed from the United States on June 5, 1974. There is a marked difference between withdrawl of an appeal, which under 8 CFR 3.4 leaves the original exclusion order in effect to the same extent as if no appeal had been taken, and withdrawal of an application for admission. If permission is granted by the immigration judge or this Board to withdraw the application for admission, the alien departs without being excluded. The alien may not, without leave and as a matter of right, withdraw his application for admission, Matter of Vargas-Molina, 13 I. & N. Dec. 651 (BIA, 1971). On this record, we see no reason to permit withdrawal of the application for admission. ORDER: The record is returned to the Service without further action by the Board. 4
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

PSS World Medical, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(No. 33-80657, No. 33-90464, No. 333-15043, No. 333-64185, No. 33-85004, No. 33-97756, No. 33-99046, No. 33-97754, No. 333-30427, No. 333-50526, No. 333-58272, and No. 333-104262) on Form S-8 of PSS World Medical, Inc. of our reports dated June 8,2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of PSS World Medical, Inc. and subsidiaries as of April 1, 2005 and April 2, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended April 1, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of April 1, 2005 and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of April 1, 2005 which reports appear in the April 1, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of PSS World Medical, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to the adoption of Emerging Issues Task Force No. 02-16, *Accounting by a Customer (Including a Reseller) for Certain Consideration Received from aVendor,*effective November 21, 2002. 

 

KPMGLLP 

 

Jacksonville, Florida 

June 13, 2005
HAIRSTON v. HARWARD

416A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2018

C. Douglas Maynard, Jr., Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, James M. Roane, III, Attorney at Law, John F. Bloss, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Hairston, William (Jr.).

Kent L. Hamrick, Attorney at Law, Ann C. Rowe, Attorney at Law, Winston Salem, for Harward, Ashwell Bennett (Jr.).

Stephanie W. Anderson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Erie Insurance Exchange.

Sara R. Lincoln, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Humble, Robert S. (M.D.), et al.

Ann C. Ochsner, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

*760Huntington M. Willis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Deborah J. Bowers, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

Andrew Pinto, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 16th of January 2018 to Amend the Case Caption:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of January 2018."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4352 

To require the Government Accountability Office to conduct periodic reviews 

of the flood insurance rates and flood insurance rate maps under the 

national flood insurance program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2014 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. JOLLY, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. 

PALAZZO, Mr. MARINO, and Mr. ROONEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Government Accountability Office to conduct 

periodic reviews of the flood insurance rates and flood 

insurance rate maps under the national flood insurance 

program, 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 ‘‘Flood Insurance Integ5 rity Act of 2014’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4352 IH

1 SEC. 2. GAO REVIEWS REGARDING FLOOD INSURANCE 

2 RATES AND RATE MAPS. 

3 (a) PERIODIC REVIEW OF RATE TABLES.—During 

4 the 6-month period that begins 12 months after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act and every 4 years thereafter, 

6 the Comptroller General of the United States shall con7 duct a review of the rate tables established by the Federal 

8 Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the na9 tional flood insurance program under the National Flood 

10 Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.) and in 

11 effect at the time of such review, and shall make a deter12 mination of whether— 

13 (1) the chargeable premium rates for flood in14 surance coverage determined by such tables are ac15 tuarially sound, based on standard actuarial prac16 tices used in the private sector; and 

17 (2) such chargeable premium rates are suffi18 cient to ensure the long-term financial sustainability 

19 of the national flood insurance program. 

20 (b) ANNUAL REVIEW OF MAPPING PROCESS AND

21 RATE MAPS.—During the 6-month period referred to in 

22 subsection (a) and annually thereafter, the Comptroller 

23 General, in consultation with the United States Geological 

24 Survey of the Department of the Interior, shall conduct 

25 a review of the process in effect at the time of such review 

26 for establishing and updating flood insurance rate maps 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4352 IH

1 under the national flood insurance program and shall 

2 make a determination of the degree of accuracy of such 

3 mapping process. 

4 (c) REPORTS.—For each review conducted pursuant 

5 to subsection (a) or (b), the Comptroller General shall sub6 mit to the Congress a report describing the results of the 

7 review and the determinations made pursuant to the re8 view. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification
(the "Report"), I, Steven R. Doll, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

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

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


                                        /s/ Steven R. Doll
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Steven R. Doll
                                        Chief Financial Officer


Date:  November 10, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas King, Chief Financial Officer of Greenlite Ventures
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2005, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Report) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                           

| | By:    | /s/
      Douglas King 
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | DOUGLAS KING           
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | March 7, 2006          

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB 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 the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
                      LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Liberty Property Trust
Liberty Property Limited Partnership
Liberty Lehigh Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership II
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership III
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation
Liberty Property Philadelphia Trust
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership IV East
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership IV West
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation IV East
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation IV West
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation V
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership V
Liberty 2001 Corp.
Liberty Property Development Corp.
Liberty Property Development Corp. II
Liberty Special Purpose Trust
Liberty Property Scottsdale Limited Partnership
Liberty UK Development Corp.
LP Malvern Limited Partnership
LP Malvern LLC
Land Holdings Realty LLC
Rivers Business Commons Associates Limited Partnership
Aymer House Ltd.
Liberty Property Philadelphia Navy Yard Limited Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Navy Yard Corporation
Liberty Property/Synterra Limited Partnership
Liberty Venture I, LP
Liberty Venture I, LLC
Silversword Properties Limited
Vine Street Uxbridge Limited
Cambridge Medipark Limited
Rouse Kent Limited
Rouse Kent (Residential), Ltd.
UK Portfolio Management Company, Ltd.
Kings Hill Estate Management Company, Ltd.
Rouse Kent Investments, Ltd.
Rouse Kent Developments, Ltd.
Rouse Kent (Central), Ltd.
Rouse Kent (1 Tower View), Ltd.
Kings Hill Property Management, Ltd.
Kings Hill Residential Estate Management Company, Ltd.
Order filed September 26, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00100

- CR

____________ ORLANDO DEWAN GODFRE Y , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 1343252



### ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original s of State’ s Exhibit 1 and
State’s Exhibit 1A , DVDs

.2

The clerk of the 182nd District Court is di rected to deliver to the Clerk of this court the original s of State’ s Exhibit 1 and State’s Exhibit 1A, DVDs , on or before October 11, 2013. The Clerk of this court is directed to rece ive, maintain, and keep safe the s e original exhibit s ; to deliver them to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original s of these
exhibits to the clerk of the 182nd District Court.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of Universal Automotive
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Arvin Scott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Robert W. Zimmer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Arvin Scott
-------------------
Name: Arvin Scott
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: November 19, 2004

/s/ Robert W. Zimmer
-----------------------
Name: Robert W. Zimmer
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 19, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

See also the certification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which is also attached to this Report.

                                       17
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 10, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40026 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FERNANDO CARMONA-CALDERON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-860-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fernando Carmona-Calderon appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony. He asserts two bases for the appeal. First, Carmona-Calderon asserts that the district court’s belief at the time of sentencing that the United States Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory, requires reversal by this court under United States v. Booker ,No. 05-40026 -2- 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because Carmona-Calderon preserved the Fanfan error in the district court, we apply a harmless error standard of review. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 n.9 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). The Government has not met its burden of proving that the district judge would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-65 (5th Cir. 2005). Carmona-Calderon’s sentence is thus vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with Booker
. Carmona-Calderon also maintains that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This issue is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although CarmonaCalderon contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule it in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Carmona-Calderon properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.