alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Arthur MCARDLE, Kimberly McArdle, Seldon Jones, Jacob McArdle, Hannah McArdle, Banning McArdle, and Frederick S. Barbour, as Guardian ad Litem for Sophie McArdle v. MISSION HOSPITAL, INC. and Mission Health System, Inc.

No. 313P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Donald R. Strickland, Attorney at Law, Karen M. Rabenau, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Jesse Rigsby, IV, Attorney at Law, for McArdle, Arthur, et al.

Phillip T. Jackson, Attorney at Law, Richard S. Daniels, Attorney at Law, Eric P. Edgerton, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Mission Hospital, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of September 2017 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2017 by Plaintiffs to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
In the MATTER OF: A.C-H.

No. 423P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Richard Croutharmel, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Ferrell, Jami Carpenter.

Michelle F. Lynch, Attorney at Law, for Hilbourn, Susan.

Misty Jorgenson, Attorney at Law, for GAL.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of December 2017 by Petitioner & Guardian Ad Litem in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of T.M.

No. 2003-CC-2398.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Thibodeaux, Raymond; Thibo-deaux, Brenda; — Other(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. JC-2002-0619 A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 03-00929.

Granted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal, which is instructed to convert relators’ application for supervisory writs to an appeal.

VICTORY, J., would deny the writ.

*615TRAYLOR, J., would deny the writ.

WEIMER, J., would deny the writ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Scott Alton HILL, Defendant.

No. COA17-758

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 10.28


 


AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT



 


This Amendment to License
and Assignment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is effective as of April 11, 2013, and is between ND Partners, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (“ND Partners”), and Cormedix, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Cormedix”).


 


WHEREAS, ND Partners
and Cormedix are parties to a License and Assignment Agreement dated January 30, 2008, as amended (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to amend the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual obligations and covenants set out herein and for good consideration the parties agree as follows:


 


1.          All
capitalized terms used in the Agreement will have the same meaning where used in this Amendment.


 


2.          Under
Article 6 Fees and Other Consideration of the Agreement pursuant to Section 6.1.2, Cormedix is obligated to make a milestone payment
of $500,000 to ND Partners upon the first issuance of a CE Marking for a licensed product. Under Section 6.4 Time for Payment,
such payment is payable to ND Partners within Thirty (“30”) days after the achievement of such issuance. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the Agreement, the parties hereby agree to delay such milestone payment to a time, chosen by Cormedix,
anytime within Twelve (“12”) months after the achievement of such issuance.


 


3.          In
consideration of the above amendment, Cormedix will promptly issue ND Partners a warrant (the “Warrant”) to
purchase 125,000 shares of the common stock of Cormedix at an exercise price of $1.50 per share. The Warrant shall be of the form
issued in the Convertible Preferred Stock issuance recently completed by Cormedix and filed with the SEC on Form 8-K on February
19, 2013, Exhibit 4.13 (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1410098/000114420413009850/v335531_ex4-13.htm), except that
the beneficial ownership limitation of Section 2(e) shall not be included in the Warrant.


 


4.          In
the event of a conflict or inconsistency between this Amendment and the Agreement, the applicable terms and conditions of this
Amendment shall prevail. All terms and conditions of the Agreement that are not amended herein shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect.


 


5.          This
Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which taken together
shall constitute one and the same document. In addition, this document may be executed by facsimile, and the parties agree that
facsimile copies of signatures shall have the same effect as original signatures.


 


[Next Page is Signature
Page]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties
have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


	ND PARTNERS, LLC	 	CORMEDIX, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By: 	/s/ Anastasios Paratestas	 	By:	/s/ Randy Milby
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name: 	Anastasios Paratestas	 	Name:	Randy Milby
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title: 	Manager of Managing Member	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. Raul Pachincano DIAZ

412P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2017

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Diaz, Raul Pachicano.

Neil C. Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of December 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Franklin Thomas STREET

No. 258P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Anne Bleyman, Attorney at Law, for Street, Franklin Thomas.

B. Carrington Skinner, IV, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*530"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
#### Mercedes Arzu, Wife of/and H. Hugh WILSON v. Wendy Kornegay, Wife of/and Horace Perez ROWLEY, III.

No. 2003-CC-2464.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 10, 2003.

In Re Kornegay, Wendy et al.; Rowley, Horace Perez III; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2001-14352; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 1686.

Denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-79225 and 333-51034) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 1998 Performance Award Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-51032) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (FormS-8 Nos. 333-115763 and 333-131800) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 2003 Performance Award Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-117889) pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Executive Deferral Plan, and (Form S-8 No. 333-124955)pertaining to the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. 2004 New-Hire Award Plan of our reports dated November 16, 2006 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and subsidiaries, Corinthian Colleges,Inc. and subsidiaries management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Orange County, California 

November 20, 2006
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0061. MICHAEL ANTONIO HICKMAN v. THE STATE.

In August 2010, following a bench trial, Michael Antonio Hickman was found

guilty of aggravated assault and attempting to commit hijacking of a motor vehicle, for

which he was sentenced, as a recidivist, to twenty years in prison for the aggravated

assault count and a consecutive five-year prison term for the criminal attempt count.

Hickman’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. Hickman v. State, 311 Ga. App. 544

(716 SE2d 597) (2011). In August 2016, Hickman filed a motion to vacate a void

sentence, asserting generally that his sentences were beyond what the law allows. The

trial court denied the motion, and Hickman filed this direct appeal.

Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year after

its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal, whichever

is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 348 (691 SE2d 247) (2010). Once this

statutory period expires, a trial court may modify only a void sentence. Id. A

sentence is void if the court imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Jones

v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004). When a sentence falls within the

statutory range of punishment, it is not void and is not subject to modification beyond

the time provided in § 17-10-1 (f). See id. A direct appeal does not lie from the denial

of a motion to modify a sentence filed outside the statutory time period unless the

motion raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void. Frazier, 302 Ga.

App. at 348.

Here, Hickman has not raised a colorable claim that his sentences are in fact

void. Hickman merely asserts the sentences imposed were not allowed by law without

September 14, 2018
any supporting argument. However, none of Hickman’s sentences exceed the

statutory maximum sentence. See OCGA § 16-5-21 (a person convicted of

aggravated assault may be punished by imprisonment for not more than twenty years);

OCGA §§ 16-4-1 and 16-5-44.1 (a person convicted of attempt to commit hijacking

of a motor vehicle may be punished by imprisonment of not more than twenty years).

Accordingly, Hickman is not entitled to a direct appeal, and this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/14/2018
FO R PUB L ICAT IO N JUDICIAL CO UNCIL O F T H E NINT H CIRCUIT IN RE CO M PL A INT O F JUDICIAL M ISCO NDUCT No. 12-90155 O RDE R

K O Z I NSKI , C hie f Judge : C om pla ina nt a l le ge s tha

t a distric t judge im

p rope rly de le gate d

the judic ia l powe r to a

de puty c le rk in his c ivil c a se . C om pla ina n t points to a

n orde r to show c a use , whic h lists a

va rie ty of jurisdic tiona l de fe c ts, som e of whic h are m arke d with a c h e c k m ark, a

n d othe rs whic h a

re not. The form

a lso c onta ins a

na rrative e xpla nation of thede fe c t

and ha s “ D e puty

C le rk” ty pe d in the signa

t ure line . C om pla ina nt infe rs tha

t the orde r m

ust ha ve be e n issue d

by the de puty

c le rk without spe c ific dire c tions from the judge .

“ [J] udge s c an ha

ve a ssista nts who a re not the m se lve s judge s” and those a ssista nts m ay “ a dvise and a ssist the re a l judge .” Ge ra s v. La fay e tte Displa y Fixture s, Inc ., 742 F.2d 1037, 1046–47 (7th C ir. 1984) (Posne r, J., disse nting). Judge s are fre e to give suc h a ssista nts spe c ific or ge ne ra l instruc tions a nd trust the a ssista nts to pe rform the func tions the y ’ ve be e n a ssigne d. For e x am ple , it is not a

n 

# FIL ED MAY27 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSim

pe rm issiblede le gat i on of judic ia l a uthority for the judge not to dra ft e ve ry word of an orde r or not to c ite -c he c k his own opinions. The ke y is tha t the subordina

te is a c ting pursua

nt to instruc tions from , a

n d unde r the supe rvision of, the judge , a nd that the judge e xe rc i s e s a

uthority ove r the substa

ntive disposition of the

m atte rs pre s e nte d to him . The orde r tha

t the distric t c ourt e m

ploy e d to he lp sc re e n out jurisdic tiona l de fe c ts e a rly is not obje c tiona

ble , e ve n if the de p uty

c le rk e xe rc ise s som e inde pe nde nt disc re tion in de te rm ining whe the r the re is a like ly de fic i e nc y . So long a s the form

is a pprove d a nd a dopte d by

the judge , a

nd the de puty

c le rk is tra ine d and supe rvise d, the func tion of de te c ting possible de fe c ts in ple a dings is suffic i e ntly

m iniste ria l tha

t it doe s not im

plic ate the judic ia l func tion. The c le rk he re did little

m ore tha n point out possible

proble m s to the pa

rtie s, and give the pa

rty who m ay have c om

m itte d the tra

nsgre ssion a

n opportunity

to e xpla in why

the pe rc e ive d proble m

didn’ t e xist, or c orre c t

the proble m . The ultim a te de c ision a s to whe t he r the ple a ding is de fe c tive , a nd wha t a c tion to ta

ke if the d e fe c t is not c orre c t e d, wa s re ta ine d by the judge . Eve n a s sum ing, the n, tha t the d e puty c le rk a c te d on his own in filling out a n d filing the

orde r to show c a use — a nd the re is no e vide nc e tha t he did— this doe s not a

m ount to misc onduc t. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii); Judic ia l-C o nduc t R ule 11(c )(1)(A), (D). DISM I SSE D .
Exhibit 32(b)

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brent K. Whittington, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Brent K. Whittington                            
|Brent K. Whittington                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 7, 2008                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream
Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. R. 4488 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To make technical corrections to two bills enabling the presentation of congressional 

gold medals, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Medal Technical Corrections 

Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO AN ACT THAT AUTHORIZES 

PRESENTATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO DR. 

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., AND CORETTA SCOTT KING. 

Section 2 of Public Law 108–368 is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)— 

(A) by striking all before ‘‘to present’’ and inserting 

the following: ‘‘(a) PRESENTATION AUTHORIZED.—The 

Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President 

pro tempore of the Senate are authorized’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(posthumously)’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Following the award of the gold medal 

in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott 

King under subsection (a), the gold medal shall be given to 

the Smithsonian Institution, where it shall be available for 

display as appropriate and made available for research. 

‘‘(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 

the Smithsonian Institution shall make the gold medal received 

under paragraph (1) available for display, particularly at the 

National Museum of African American History and Culture, 

or for loan as appropriate so that it may be displayed elsewhere, 

particularly at other appropriate locations associated with the 

lives of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Coretta Scott King.’’. 

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO AN ACT THAT AUTHORIZES 

PRESENTATION OF A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 

COLLECTIVELY TO THE MONTFORD POINT MARINES, 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS. 

Section 2 of Public Law 112–59 is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(c) SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Following the award of the gold medal 

in honor of the Montford Point Marines, United States Marine 

Corps under subsection (a), the gold medal shall be given 
H. R. 4488—2 

to the Smithsonian Institution, where it shall be available 

for display as appropriate and made available for research. 

‘‘(2) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that 

the Smithsonian Institution shall make the gold medal received 

under paragraph (1) available for display, particularly at the 

National Museum of African American History and Culture, 

or for loan as appropriate so that it may be displayed elsewhere, 

particularly at other appropriate locations associated with the 

Montford Point Marines.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Official Journal C 77/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 77 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 611 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 77

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 611 March 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 77/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8803 — Michelin/Sumitomo/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2018/C 77/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8665 — Discovery/Scripps) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 77/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8803 — Michelin/Sumitomo/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2018/C 77/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8665 — Discovery/Scripps) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2018/C 77/03 CON/2018/1 | Opinion of the European Central Bank of 2 January 2018 on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European business statistics amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and repealing 10 legal acts in the field of business statistics (CON/2018/1) | 2 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Central Bank

2018/C 77/03 CON/2018/1

Opinion of the European Central Bank of 2 January 2018 on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European business statistics amending Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 and repealing 10 legal acts in the field of business statistics (CON/2018/1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 77/04 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 77/04

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 77/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8806 — Richemont/Yoox Net-a-Porter Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2018/C 77/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8821 — Advent International/Circet Groupe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 77/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8806 — Richemont/Yoox Net-a-Porter Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

6

2018/C 77/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8821 — Advent International/Circet Groupe) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, 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/ Robert Schaffhauser            
|Robert Schaffhauser                
|Executive Vice President of Finance
|May 13, 2005
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136841 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136841 

 COA: 274131 

Isabella CC: 06-000516-FH 

PAUL JAMES ELLIOTT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1117 

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. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
In the MATTER OF: K.A.R.

No. COA17-56

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 1, 2017

AFFIRMED.