alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SWAN BEACH COROLLA, L.L.C., et al. v. COUNTY OF CURRITUCK, et al.

397A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2018

G. Nicholas Herman, Attorney at Law, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, for County of Currituck, et al.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, Lacy H. Reaves, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Swan Beach Corolla, L.L.C., et al.

Lars P. Simonsen, Attorney at Law, Edenton, Roger W. Knight, Attorney at Law, Micah R. Simonsen, Attorney at Law, for Fruitville Beach Civic Association, Inc., et al.

James S. Schenck, IV, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of January 2018 by Fruitville Beach Civic Association, Inc. and Northern Currituck Outer Bank Association, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of January 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

The undersigned, as the chief executive officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certifies that the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

 

Dated:  March 27, 2009

 

|   | /s/ Ellis L. Gutshall_____________ |
|--------|------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128599 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan RONALD PULERA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128599 COA: 250409 Genesee CC: 2002-074394-CK STC BROADCASTING, INC., d/b/a WEYI-TV, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the July 24, 2003 opinion and order of the Ge nesee Circuit Court. Plaintiff admitted in paragraph 10 of his complaint: “Per the term s of the employment contract, plaintiff was to work for D efendant Corporation from Apr il 13, 1998 to December 31, 2000.” This admission establishes that th e parties’ employment contract had a beginning date of April 13, 1998 and an ending date of December 31, 2 000. It is undisputed that plaintiff worked for the durati on of this period and that defe ndant paid plaintiff for his work during this p eriod. Defendant therefore had no obligation under the employment contract to pay plaintiff a severance. New Amsterdam Casualty Company v Sokolowski

, 374 Mich 340 (1965) ("If the language of the contract is cl ear and unambiguous, it is to be construed according to its plain sense and meaning.").

We do not retain jurisdiction.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would deny leave to appeal.

s1122 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 28, 2005

Clerk
STATE of NC EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION, et al. v. N.C. WASTE AWARENESS & REDUCTION NETWORK

350A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2018

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, John D. Runkle, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Waste Awareness And Reduction Network (NC WARN).

Sam Watson, General Counsel, David T. Drooz, Staff Attorney, Robert B. Josey, Jr., Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina (ex rel. Utilities Commission).

Antionette R. Wike, Chief Counsel, for Public Staff-NC Utilities Commission.

Lawrence B. Somers, Deputy General Counsel, Dwight W. Allen, Attorney at Law, Britton H. Allen, Attorney at Law, Britton H. Allen, Attorney at Law, Brady W. Allen, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.

Edward Breitschwerdt, Attorney at Law, Horace P. Payne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Andrea R. Kells, Attorney at Law, Valyce M. Davis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al.

Monica E. Webb, Attorney at Law.

David L. Neal, Attorney at Law, Lauren Joy Bowen, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Interfaith Power and Light, et al.

Joseph W. Eason, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Electric Membership Corporation.

Daniel C. Higgins, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Eastern Municipal Power Agency, et al.

Perrin Wells de Jong, Attorney at Law, Asheville, Howard M. Crystal, Attorney at Law, Anchun Jean Su, Attorney at Law, for Center for Biological Diversity, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of January 2018 by North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, and Electricities of North Carolina, Inc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

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

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                    2003                2002               2001
<S>                                                            <C>                  <C>              <C>
BASIC:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders             $ (7,223,000)        $ 3,849,000      $ (17,607,000)
                                                                ============         ===========      =============

Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding                                5,824,000           5,824,000          5,866,000
                                                                ============         ===========      =============

Basic income (loss) per common share                                 $ (1.24)             $ 0.66            $ (3.00)
                                                                ============         ===========      =============


DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders             $ (7,223,000)        $ 3,849,000      $ (17,607,000)
                                                                ============         ===========      =============

Weighted average number of
          common shares outstanding                                5,824,000           5,824,000          5,866,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                          --                  --                 --
                                                                ------------         -----------      -------------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                      5,824,000           5,824,000          5,866,000
                                                                ============         ===========      =============

Diluted income (loss) per common share                          $      (1.24)        $      0.66      $       (3.00)
                                                                ============         ===========      =============
</TABLE>
#### John Carl SANDERS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 61011.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 20, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 1, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Emmett D. Queener Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, C.J., BRECKENRIDGE and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

John Carl Sanders appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Since a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

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

I, David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended March 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

          /s/ David A. Smith
---------------------------------------
            David A. Smith
 President and Chief Executive Officer

June 25, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PSS World Medical, Inc. and will be retained by PSS World Medical,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Abrons Family Practice and Urgent Care, PA ; Nash Ob-Gyn Associates, PA; Highland Obstetrical-Gynecological Clinic, PA ; Children's Health of Carolina, PA; Capital Nephrology Associates, PA; Hickory Allergy & Asthma Clinic, PA; Halifax Medical Specialists, PA ; and Westside Ob-Gyn Center, PA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and Computer Sciences Corporation

No. 427A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Camden R. Webb, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth Connolly Stone, 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, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Attorney at Law, Bryan Starrett, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Bryant C. Boren, Jr., Attorney at Law, Ryan L. Bangert, Attorney at Law, Van H. Beckwith, Attorney at Law, for Computer Sciences Corporation.

Mark S. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant (Computer Sciences Corporation) on the 22nd of November 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
* 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. 07-20771

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO VILLA-CHAVEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-225-2

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Francisco Villa-Chavez (Villa) has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Villa has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2459
WILLIAM SPENCER BACH; BARBARA RUTH BACH, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-330) Submitted: April 27, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Spencer Bach, Barbara Ruth Bach, Appellants Pro Se. LorettaC. Argrett, Ellen Page DelSole, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William and Barbara Bach appeal from the tax court’s order determining a deficiency and penalties with respect to their 1987 federal income tax liability. Our review of the record and the taxcourt’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Bach v. Commissioner , Tax Ct. No. 95-330 (U.S. Tax Ct. July 29, 1998). We dispense withoral 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
FAUS GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant.

Slip Op. 08-100

United States Court of International Trade

BEFORE: Pogue, Judge

Court No. 03-00313

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s opinion and order in this

matter, it is hereby

ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice. Final

judgment is entered for the Government as to all of Plaintiff’s

claims. On this date, final judgment is also entered in case No.

98-00360. Plaintiff has reserved the right to appeal as to its

claim that the subject merchandise is properly classifiable under

HTSUS Heading 4418 (as “builders’ joinery”), and also under

Subheading 4418.30.00 or, in the alternative, under Subheading

4418.90.40 (currently 4418.90.45).

 /s/ Donald C. Pogue 

Donald C. Pogue, Judge

Dated: September 18, 2008

New York, New York
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-120692), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94782), the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39282),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65592) of Liberty Property Trust
and Liberty Property Limited Partnership and the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-14139), the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32244), the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-53297), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-63115), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37218),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-45032), the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-62504), the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62506),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-63494), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-63978), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-91702),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107482), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-108040), the Registration Statement (Form No. 333-114609), the
Registration Statement (Form No. 333-118994) of Liberty Property Trust and in
the related Prospectuses and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-118995) pertaining to the Liberty Property Trust Amended and Restated Share
Incentive Plan of our reports dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Liberty Property Trust,
Liberty Property Trust management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Liberty Property Trust, included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 7, 2005
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 16, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00951-CV 

IN RE JOSHUA SKINNER, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-20176 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Before the Court is relator’s August 13, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relator asks this Court to compel Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to 

deliver to relator notification of the trial court’s denial of relator’s motion for postconviction DNA testing and to notify this Court of relator’s notice of appeal from 

the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. 

Relator bears the burden to provide the Court with a record that is sufficient 

to show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To meet this burden, rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires the 

relator to file an appendix with his petition that contains “a certified or sworn copy 
 –2– 

of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained 

of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule 52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with 

the petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the 

relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.7(a)(1). Relator, however, did not file an appendix or record to support his 

petition. Thus, relator failed to meet his burden to provide a sufficient record, and 

his petition does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus relief. 

See In re Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition. 

Also before the Court is relator’s motion to file an original copy only of his 

application for writ of mandamus. The motion is denied as moot. 

240951F.P05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00207-CR

______________________________

FELIPE RUBIO GASPAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22386

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Felipe Rubio Gaspar appeals. We have received a motion from counsel asking us to extend

the time for filing his notice of appeal. He states that Gaspar was convicted June 12, 2008, that a

motion for new trial and arrest of judgment was filed, and that appellate counsel was appointed.

Counsel states that he asked the district clerk whether a notice of appeal had been filed and was told

that it had been. However, on October 15, 2008, counsel discovered that no notice of appeal had

been filed, and he filed a notice of appeal October 16, 2008.

With conviction and sentencing occurring June 12, 2008, and with a motion for new trial

being timely filed, the notice of appeal was due to be filed no more than ninety days later, on

September 10, 2008. The rule also provides a fifteen-day grace period, which expired September 25,

2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. The information before this Court reflects that no notice of appeal

or motion to extend time was filed until over twenty days after the expiration of the grace period. 

Our jurisdiction over an appeal is circumscribed by statute and rule, and we are not permitted

to engage in actions that will enlarge that jurisdiction. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this

Court is without jurisdiction. Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993);see Slaton

v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Further, courts of appeals may not employ Rule 2

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend appellate time limits and thus expand our

jurisdiction. Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
We are relying on counsel's statements concerning the timing of the events giving rise to the 1

notice of appeal. The relief sought must be granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

3

Therefore, based on the information before us, we must conclude the notice of appeal is

untimely.1

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: October 22, 2008

Date Decided: October 23, 2008

Do Not Publish
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4416 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 161 Live Oak Street in Miami, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4416 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MANUEL V. MENDOZA POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

4 States Postal Service located at 161 Live Oak Street in 

5 Miami, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel V. Mendoza Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Manuel 

12 V. Mendoza Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS