alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SLAUGHTER v. SLAUGHTER

324P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 14, 2017

Ralph S. Pennington, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, J. Albert Clyburn, Attorney at Law, for Slaughter, Martin T.

John M. Martin, Attorney at Law, Winterville, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Slaughter, Nicole B.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of November 2017 by Defendant to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of November 2017."
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐259/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2005/51/EC – Public procurement – Procedure for the award of public contracts – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Member States – Obligations – Implementation of directives – Failure to fulfil obligations not contested (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 8-10, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
YILI TSENG v. Harold MARTIN, individually and as Chancellor of North Carolina A&T State University, Benjamin Uwakweh, individually and as Dean of North Carolina A&T State University, and North Carolina A&T State University

No. 219P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Yili Tseng, for Tseng, Yili.

Matthew Thomas Tulchin, Assistant Attorney General, for Martin, Harold, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of June 2016 by Plaintiff 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."
In the MATTER OF: M.D.H., V.C.H.

No. COA17-326

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9



<CIK>                   0000920986   
<NAME>                  TeleBanc Financial Corp
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                             2,165
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             44,241
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   45,750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                   21,110
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>        410,440
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             406,735
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               3,705
<LOANS>                            544,298
<ALLOWANCE>                        3,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,100,352
<DEPOSITS>                         522,221
<SHORT-TERM>                       479,909
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                13,212
<LONG-TERM>                        29,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              9,572
<PREFERRED>                        15,281
<COMMON>                           22
<OTHER-SE>                         30,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>     1,000,352
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    34,729
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   24,572
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   59,301
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 25,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 20,105
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              13,238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                      921
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                 4,093
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    10,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,268
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         6,268
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          2,597
<NET-INCOME>                       3,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                     1.73
<LOANS-NON>                        11,437
<LOANS-PAST>                       5,273
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                   425
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                    11,437
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   3,310
<CHARGE-OFFS>                      304
<RECOVERIES>                       20 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  3,594
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               3,084
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                0    
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            3,084
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008128EN.01003302.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/33

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2008 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case T-233/07) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

(2008/C 128/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06 Lebedef-Caponi v Commission [2007] ECR I-0000 seeking annulment of that judgment.

Lebedef-Caponi

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi is ordered to pay her own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi is ordered to pay her own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
STATE v. Antwan ANTHONY

324A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 21, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Jonathan E. Broun, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Anthony, Antwan.

Kimberly Robb, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of July 2017."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 21st day of August 2017 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20224 Conference Calendar

__________________ CHARLES VERNON POPHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus NFN COUNTZ, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-223

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Charles Popham appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in which he alleged that his health and safety were endangered during a fire at the prison. A district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).No. 95-20224 -2- This court reviews a prisoner's allegations challenging the conditions of his confinement under the "deliberate indifference" standard. Wilson v. Seiter , 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). A prison official acts with deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment "only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and [he] disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). Deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner "constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976) Popham did not plead any facts raising an allegation that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety. On the contrary, when faced with an emergency due to a fire, they acted promptly in evacuating Popham and the other prisoners in his cell-block. Popham then received treatment for smoke inhalation before being returned to his cell. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Popham's complaint as frivolous. See Eason , 14 F.3d at 9. Popham's appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40084

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Alberto Arturo GonzalezHernandez, true name Juan Zamora-Murillo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-421-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo ChavezHernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavez-Hernandez has filed a response.1 The record 

 

* 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.

1 Chavez-Hernandez urges that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and 

United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 813 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 815 F.3d 

189 (5th Cir.), vacated, No. 15-50051 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016)(en banc) apply to his case. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 16-40084

2

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ChavezHernandez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. 

Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Chavez-Hernandez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

However, Chavez-Hernandez was not sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act; nor 

was he sentenced under a “residual” definition of crime of violence.

 Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
STATE of North Carolina v. Teon Jamell WILLIAMS

No. 107P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, Teon Jamell Williams, for Williams, Teon Jamell.

Thomas O. Lawton, III, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th of April 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."
#### In the Interest of K.C.M. Juvenile Officer of Howard County, Missouri, Respondent, v. D.M. (Natural Mother), Appellant, and R.M. (Natural Father), Defendant.

No. WD 62385.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Edward Berg, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Kenneth D. Kyser, Moberly, MO, for respondent.

Loramel P. Shurtleff, Columbia, MO, for defendant.

Amy D. Markel, Columbia, MO, Guardian ad litem.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and EDWIN H. SMITH and HOWARD, JJ.

Order

PER CURIAM.

Mother previously appealed from a judgment terminating her parental rights to K.C.M. This court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that Mother’s parental rights were subject to termination under the ground set forth in section 211.447.2(1), but remand was necessary for the juvenile court to properly consider and make sufficient findings under section 211.447.6 on the issue of whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests, as required by section 211.447.5. *In the Interest of K.C.M., 85*S.W.3d 682, 694 (Mo.App. W.D.2002).

Upon remand, the juvenile court entered its judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to K.C.M. after again finding, among other things, that her parental rights were subject to termination under the ground set forth in section 211.447.2(1) and this time making findings under section 211.447.6 that termination was in the child’s best interests. On appeal, Mother again challenges the statutory grounds for termination of her parental rights. The doctrine of law of the case precludes her from re-litigating the issue. She does not challenge the sufficiency of the juvenile court’s findings under section 211.447.6 with regard to termination being in the child’s best interests.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 25, 2015

p0318

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2015

149980

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149980

COA: 321962

Berrien CC: 2013-015216-FH

ROBERT EDWARD LUTHER, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 2, 2014 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on 

leave granted.
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 CEO Certification

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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Rodolfo Prieto, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Rodolfo Prieto     
|Rodolfo Prieto         
|Chief Executive Officer



May 15, 2006



- 25 -
#### In the Matter of New York State Labor Relations Board, Petitioner, against National Beauty Parlors, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

June 29, 1943.

*Beryl H. Levy*and *Daniel Kornblum*for petitioner.

*Murray M. Zoberg*for Murray Zoberg and N.B.P. Holding & Supply Corporation, respondents.

Steuer, J.

Petitioner, New York State Labor Relations Board, seeks to compel compliance with its order. The difficulty giving rise to the order arose from the effort of respondents to maintain their business in the face of adverse economic conditions. To avoid minimum wages, workmen’s compensation and the other expenses incidental to the cost of labor, respondents adopted the practice known as *“*booth renting ”. The theory of this practice is to make each employee a tenant with a percentage of his commissions paying the rent. This proposition was fairly explained to the employees and they adopted it. It was simultaneously made clear that the probable alternative was the respondents’ going out of business. This is the unfair practice which respondents are ordered to cease and desist.

In its finding the Board was indisputably correct. There was no *bona fide*rental intended or effected. The relationship remained as it was before — employer and employee. Consent of the employees to the scheme did not render it any the less a device to avoid the statutory charges of labor. The scheme was not unfair in the sense that there was fraud or overreaching. The use of the word of art rankles and has engendered controversy resulting in ill feeling.

*998As to the other matters, it appeared that the decision regarding the employee Courmette has been rendered largely academic by his induction into the Army and the respondents made no point of it on the argument. The requirement that notices be posted in all of respondents’ shops, rather than in the one where the difficulty arose, is a detail peculiarly the province of petitioner.

The motion is granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1311

ELIZABETH ANN EL KASSEMY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TELVISTA, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cv-00018-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Ann El Kassemy, Appellant Pro Se. Agnis Chandra Chakravorty, Frank Kenneth Friedman, WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Ann El Kassemy appeals the district court’s
order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. El Kassemy v. Telvista, Inc. , No. 4:08-cv-00018-jlk-mfu
(W.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
In re Appeal by: Toney L. HARRELL and T.L. Harrell's Land Development Co., Inc. v. The MIDLAND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT and The Town of Midland

No. 64P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Anthony Fox, Attorney at Law, Benjamin R. Sullivan, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nicolas E. Tosco, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Town of Midland.

John F. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, James E. Scarbrough, Attorney at Law, Concord, for Harrell, Toney L., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2017 by Petitioners 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."
ABRONS FAMILY PRACTICE & URGENT CARE, PA, et al. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al.

427A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 23, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Abrons Family Practice and Urgent Care, PA, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Bryan Starrett, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, Raleigh, Attorneys at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law

Matthew Jordan Cochran, Thomas E. Cone, Greensboro, Curtis B. Venable, Stephen J. White, Attorneys at Law, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, et al.

Morgan, J.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of May 2017 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2017."

Plaintiffs shall have up to and including the 2nd day of June 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal C 242E/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 242E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5016 October 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 242E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5016 October 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2007/C 242E/01 | Common Position (EC) No 11/2007 of 23 July 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a paperless environment for customs and trade | 1 |
| 2007/C 242E/02 | Common Position (EC) No 12/2007 of 23 July 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive) (1) | 11 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

COUNCIL

2007/C 242E/01

Common Position (EC) No 11/2007 of 23 July 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a paperless environment for customs and trade

1

2007/C 242E/02

Common Position (EC) No 12/2007 of 23 July 2007 adopted by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive) (1)

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN