alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Jesse C. SANTIFORT

108P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2017

Walter S. Webster, Attorney at Law, Goldsboro, Vernon K. Stewart, Attorney at Law, Dunn, for Santifort, Jesse C.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant 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 April 2017 by State of NC to Amend Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of April 2017."
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4248 

To require institutions of higher education to disseminate information with 

respect to the completion rates, employment rates, and retention rates 

of recipients of GI Bill funding. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Mr. TAKANO (for himself and Mr. FLORES) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require institutions of higher education to disseminate 

information with respect to the completion rates, employment rates, and retention rates of recipients of GI Bill 

funding. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Education 

5 Outcomes Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4248 IH

1 SEC. 2. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION WITH RESPECT TO 

2 RECIPIENTS OF GI BILL FUNDING. 

3 Section 485(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1)(Q)— 

6 (A) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘and’’; and 

7 (B) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause 

8 (iv); and 

9 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(v) are recipients of educational as11 sistance provided under chapter 30 or 33 

12 of title 38, United States Code, or chapter 

13 1606 of title 10, United States Code;’’; 

14 and 

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

16 ‘‘(8) The information disseminated under sub17 paragraphs (E), (L), (R), (S), and (U) of paragraph 

18 (1) shall be disaggregated by the recipients of edu19 cational assistance provided under chapter 30 or 33 

20 of title 38, United States Code, or chapter 1606 of 

21 title 10, United States Code, if the number of stu22 dents in such subgroup is sufficient to yield statis23 tically reliable information and reporting will not re24 veal personally identifiable information about an in25 dividual student. If such number is not sufficient for 

26 such purposes, then the institution shall note that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4248 IH

1 the institution enrolled too few of such students to 

2 so disclose or report with confidence and confiden3 tiality.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Arnold GILLESPIE

No. 226P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Gillespie, Michael Arnold.

Kathryn J. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kathryn J. Thomas, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th 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 28th of September 2017."
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Robert M. Doyle, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coinmach Service Corp.; 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 have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. 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 of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 

 
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: November 9, 2005 /s/ Robert M. Doyle   Robert M. Doyle   Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 185 (Monday, September 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19134]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 11, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Glenda Wilson, Community 
Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. The First Bank of Raymond Employee Stock Ownership Plan, 
Raymond, Illinois, individually, and as a control group with its 
trustees, Patricia L. Clarke, Farmersville, Illinois; Larry J. Herron, 
Girard, Illinois; and Neil T. Jordon, Morrisonville, Illinois, to 
retain control of Raymond Bancorp, Inc., Raymond, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19134 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00171-CV

A&T Consultants, Ltd., Appellant

v.

Roark Amusement & Vending, L.P., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-001377, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant A&T Consultants, Ltd. has filed a motion to dismiss its appeal, stating

that Roark Amusement & Vending, L.P. does not oppose the dismissal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: May 23, 2014
# Official Journal L 221/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 221 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6421 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 221

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6421 June 2021

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2021/991 of 7 June 2021 concerning the dock dues scheme in the French outermost regions and amending Decision No 940/2014/EU | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2021/991 of 7 June 2021 concerning the dock dues scheme in the French outermost regions and amending Decision No 940/2014/EU

1

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/992 of 18 June 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction | 12 |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | UN Regulation No 160 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Event Data Recorder | 15 |

II   Non-legislative acts

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/992 of 18 June 2021 amending Recommendation (EU) 2020/912 on the temporary restriction on non-essential travel into the EU and the possible lifting of such restriction

12

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

UN Regulation No 160 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Event Data Recorder

15

| 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.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60071

Conference Calendar

DAVID JOE THOMAS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHELLE JORDAN, Mississippi Department of Corrections Director of

Records Department; WENDY POWER, Mississippi Department of Corrections

Director of Classification Department

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:06-CV-361

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Joe Thomas, Mississippi prisoner # 37145, pleaded guilty to

burglary and was sentenced to five years in prison. Thomas filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit, alleging that the defendants’ failure to classify him as a trusty

deprived him of the opportunity to earn 260 days of good time credits. The

district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60071

2

concluding that it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. This

appeal followed.

In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e),

this court employs the same de novo standard of review applicable to dismissals

made pursuantto FED. R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156

(5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s dismissal was correct. There is no

constitutionally protected interest in either a custodial classification or the

possibility of earning good-time credits. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th

Cir. 1995); see also Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Thomas’s appeal lacks arguable merit. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

220 (5th Cir. 1983). Therefore, we dismiss it as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Because Thomas was incarcerated at the time he filed his notice of appeal and

at the time he filed his suit, the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the

dismissal by the district court of Thomas’s suit both count as strikes under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.

1996). Thomas is cautioned that he has now accumulated two strikes and that,

if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis

in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# C_2010024EN.01007201.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/72

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2009 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-102/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2004, 2005 and 2006 Promotions procedures - Award of priority points - Priority points awarded by directors general - Priority points in recognition of work carried out in the interests of the institution - Principle of non-discrimination - Duty to state reasons)

2010/C 24/130

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, initially, and C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, subsequently, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of various Commission decisions concerning the award to the applicant of directorate general priority points (PPDG) and/or priority points in recognition of additional tasks carried out in the interests of the institution (PPII) under the 2004, 2005 and 2006 promotion exercises.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007, p. 49.

1

---
#### Aboul Howard BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D03-673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Roberta G. Mandel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before COPE and GREEN, JJ., and NESBITT, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of *State v. Franklin,*836 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (en banc)1; but nonetheless certify so as to pair them for review with *Taylor v. State,*818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); rev. dismissed, 821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002).

1

. Judges Cope and Green dissented.

GREEN, J.

(specially concurring).

The doctrine of stare decisis compels me to join in the affirmance of this cause, but I continue to adhere to the view that *Taylor v. State,*818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), *review dismissed,*821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002), was correct in its conclusion that Chapter Law 99-188, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution.
# Official Journal C 292/30 N

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 292 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4730 November 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 292

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4730 November 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 292/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 292/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3646 — MABSA/Belgian State/BIAC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 292/3 | State aid — Czech Republic — State aid C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha, a.s./ GE Capital Bank, a.s. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 292/4 | Publication of the final accounts of the agencies and bodies of the European Union for the 2003 financial year | 20 |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2004/C 292/5 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 16 July 2004 on the statistical reporting requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of balance of payments and international investment position statistics, and the international reserves template (ECB/2004/16) | 21 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 292/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 292/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3646 — MABSA/Belgian State/BIAC/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2004/C 292/3

State aid — Czech Republic — State aid C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha, a.s./ GE Capital Bank, a.s. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

3

2004/C 292/4

Publication of the final accounts of the agencies and bodies of the European Union for the 2003 financial year

20

European Central Bank

2004/C 292/5

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 16 July 2004 on the statistical reporting requirements of the European Central Bank in the field of balance of payments and international investment position statistics, and the international reserves template (ECB/2004/16)

21

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 292/6 | Call for proposals VP/2004/017 — Budget heading 04.02.10 — Innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation: ‘Transfer and dissemination of innovation from ESF Article 6 projects’ | 63 |

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 292/6

Call for proposals VP/2004/017 — Budget heading 04.02.10 — Innovative measures under Article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation: ‘Transfer and dissemination of innovation from ESF Article 6 projects’

63

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
#### Djelina Lekutanovic et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[719 NYS2d 556]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered *379July 14, 1999, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the municipal defendant’s answer and granted that defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, and the motion granted unless said defendant complies with plaintiffs’ discovery demand within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

There was no justification for granting summary judgment to the municipal defendant before it had complied with plaintiffs’ discovery demands. Those demands were reasonable and met with no objection. The motion to strike was made fully a year after the City had initially agreed to produce its records. Those records might or might not reveal a hazard at the location of the accident, which could raise a question as to the necessity of a more appropriate safety design. In light of the incomplete state of the record, summary judgment was premature *(Johnson v Fuller Co.,*235 AD2d 348). Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Wallach, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133348-49 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff, Justices Counter Defendant-Appellant, 

v SC: 133348-49 

 COA: 260766, 261504 

Oakland CC: 02-039177-CZ 

A&A MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION 

SERVICES, INC., RENAISSANCE PHYSICAL

THERAPY, L.L.C., RAHAT MALIK,

PHYSICIANS REHABILITATION, L.L.C., 

ZUBAIR RATHUR, IMAN FAWAZ, and FIRST

CHOICE REHAB, INC.,

Defendants, 

Counter Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of November 21, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the January 

23, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Miller v Allstate (Docket Nos. 134393, 134406). On order of the Court, the case having 

been decided on July 2, 2008, 481 Mich 601 (2008), the application is again considered, 

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

1020 

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
The STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Lamont MONROE

No. COA17-538

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
(Nos. 333-15877 and 333-51681) on Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories Inc. of 
our report dated July 6, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Northfield
Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended May 31, 1998 and for the cumulative period
from June 19, 1985 (inception) through May 31, 1998, which report appears in
the May 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Northfield Laboratories Inc.


                                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
August 31, 1998