alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DUNHILL HOLDINGS, LLC v. LINDBERG, et al.

313P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 24, 2018

Matthew N. Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kip David Nelson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Dunhill Holdings, LLC, et al.

Robert E. Zaytoun, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, John N. Hutson, Jr., Attorney at Law, N. Cole Williams, Attorney at Law, Durham, Matthew D. Ballew, Attorney at Law, John R. Taylor, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Lindberg, Tisha L.

Anthony D. Taibi, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Massey, Wes.

Ronald W. Merritt, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Boone, Derek.

Joseph A. Schouten, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Merritt, Hardee.

David O. Lewis, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Herndon, Craig.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of September 2018 by Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2018."

Jackson, J. recused
Bradley Lynn MAUNEY v. STATE of North Carolina

No. 241P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 6, 2018

Bradley Lynn Mauney, for Mauney, Bradley Lynn.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 6th of August 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Guilford County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of August 2018."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 26, 2015

No. 04-14-00820-CV

Buddy CASTEEL and Jaret B. Casteel,

Appellants

v.

Amelia STAYTON and Ray Baugh,

Appellees

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-3228-DC

Honorable Watt Murrah, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for temporary 

injunction entered prior to trial on November 17, 2014. In a related case, appellant filed an appeal 

from the trial court’s final judgment entered on January 28, 2015. In that case, the trial court granted 

a new trial on its own motion on February 28, 2015. Therefore, this Court dismissed the appeal on 

March 25, 2015. 

The underlying circumstances, passage of time and procedural posture of this appeal from the 

order denying temporary injunction create an issue whether this court’s review is still needed or 

whether it is moot. Appellate courts cannot review a temporary injunction that has become moot, as 

any opinion would constitute an impermissible advisory opinion. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic 

Assoc. v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999); Reagan Nat’l Adver. v. Vanderhoof Family Trust, 

82 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.)(basis of temporary injunction was no 

longer at issue).

For this reason, appellant shall file a letter advisory on or before 10 days from the date of 

this order advising this court: (1) whether he still occupies the property at issue: (2) if appellant 

does occupy the subject property, whether such tenancy will continue until conclusion of the new 

trial, and; (3) if appellant does not occupy the subject property, whether any harm the injunction 

was intended to prevent, or any threat of a permanent loss of property that served as a basis for 

the injunction, is still an issue. 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Visual Management Systems, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, J.D. Gardner, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and,

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

|             |     |                          | 
|------------ | --- | ------------------------ | 
|May 20, 2010 | By: | /s/ J.D. Gardner         | 
|             |     |                          | 
|             |     | Chief
 Financial Officer | 

22

---
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Form 10-K) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 1, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    L. Kevin Kelly  
|                     |  |  |  | L. Kevin Kelly         
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.66



 




 



    	1



    	 



    

 




 



    	2



    	 



    

 




 





    	3



    	 



    

 




 





    	4



    	 



    

 




 





    	5



    	 



    

 




 





    	6



    	 



    

 




 





    	7



    	 



    

 




 





    	8



    	 



    

 




 





    	9



    	 



    

 




 





    	10



    	 



    

 




 



    	11



    	 



    

 




 



    	12
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    Thomas A. CarrThomas A. CarrChief Executive Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)August 16, 2004




/s/    Stephen E. RiffeeStephen E. RiffeeChief Financial Officer (of CarrAmerica Realty Corporation, the General Partner of CarrAmerica Realty Operating Partnership, L.P.)August 16, 2004
STATE v. Ryan Lamar PARSONS

320P17-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Ryan Lamar Parsons, Lorraine B. Lewis, Pro Se/Power of Attorney obo Parsons, for Parsons, Ryan Lamar.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of February 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
No. 17,374.

#### Newmyer *v.*David.

(280 P. [2d] 442)

Decided February 21, 1955.

Mr. John F. Mueller, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Shuteran, Robinson, Harrington & Banta, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
#### S.S., the Father, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent.

No. 4D02-4837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Kathléen K. Pena of the Law Office of Kathleen K. Pena, Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori R. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.

KLEIN, J.

We grant the father’s petition for writ of prohibition in which he asserts that Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S., his child, under the Uniform Custody Jurisdiction Act, section 61.514, Florida Statutes (2002).

Before the birth of T.S., his parents and their two other children lived in Florida, *307but left the state in 1994 after child sexual abuse charges were filed against the father and dependency proceedings were initiated. The family wasn’t located until 2002, when it was discovered living in New York. T.S. was born after the family left Florida.

The father has been arrested and it appears he is now incarcerated pretrial in Florida. The children were removed from the mother in New York and are now in Florida. T.S., who had never lived in Florida, was only sent here from New York because, as a result of a mistake in the paper work filed by the department, his address was shown as “Jamaica Queens Florida.”

The father moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only as to T.S., because it was undisputed that T.S. had never been in Florida prior to being picked up in New York. The trial court denied the motion.

The Department argues that the trial court has jurisdiction under section 61.514(l)(b), Florida Statutes, which would authorize Florida to exercise jurisdiction over T.S. if New York is not the home state, or if New York has declined jurisdiction and Florida is the more appropriate forum. It is undisputed, however, that T.S. has never been in Florida prior to this and is only here because of the mistake. Florida can only have jurisdiction under these circumstances if, under section 61.514(l)(b), no other state is the home state of the child, or if another state is, it has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum.

There is nothing in this record to demonstrate that New York has declined to exercise jurisdiction, and accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, we have no alternative but to grant the writ of prohibition because Florida does not have subject matter jurisdiction over T.S. *Snider v. Snider,*686 So.2d 802 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(if the jurisdictional requirements of the UC-CJA are not met, the court has no subject matter jurisdiction).

WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 17, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (the “Act”), American Society of Radiologic Technologists (“ASRT”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Society of Radiologic Technologists, Albuquerque, NM. The nature and scope of ASRT's standards development activities are: Amending the practice standards for radiologic technologists in the fields of radiography, mammography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, diagnostic sonography, nuclear medicine, cardiovascular-interventional radiography and radiation therapy. The standards amendment activities will cover defining the scopes of practice in these areas, and delineate practice standards criteria for clinical performance, quality performance, and professional performance. ASRT's standards also include development of new standards for cardio-interventional radiography, vascular-interventional radiography, bone densitometry as well as the practice of radiologist assistants.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-1971  Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit 23.01**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-147476, No. 333-130143, No. 333-82424, No. 333-58118,No. 333-32544, and No. 333-73443) on Form S-8 of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc.and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year periodended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009, annual report on Form 10-K of Heidrick & StrugglesInternational, Inc. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

March 1, 2010
STATE of North Carolina v. Noui PHACHOUMPHONE

No. 65PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

William D. Spence, Attorney at Law, Kinston, for Phachoumphone, Noui.

M. Elizabeth Guzman, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

M. Elizabeth Guzman, Assistant Attorney General.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of March 2018 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

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).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      2,972,040
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,560
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,049,682<F1> 
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,049,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         161,560
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,888,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,049,682
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,369,763
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              671,438
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             4,698,325
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4,698,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                4,698,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .497
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .497
<FN>
<F1> Includes $66,082 for prepaid insurance.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Christopher J. ANGLIN v. Philip E. BERGER, in his official capacity as President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina State Senate; Timothy K. Moore, in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of the North Carolina House of Representatives; The State of North Carolina; The North Carolina Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement; and Kimberly W. Strach, in her official capacity as Executive Director of North Carolina Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement

No. 272P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

D. Martin Warf, Attorney at Law, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Matthew A. Abee, Attorney at Law, for Berger, Philip E., et al.

John D. Burns, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Michael David Bland, Attorney at Law, Matthews, Bo Caudill, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Anglin, Christopher J.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 27th of August 2018 by Defendants (Berger & Moore) 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Jackson, J. recused
In the MATTER OF: A.S., R.S.

No. COA17-1129

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
|   | 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/      Dennis M. Terry                              |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Dennis      M. Terry                                  |
|   |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer            |
|   |   |                                                  |
|   |   |                                                  |
|   |   |                                                  |
|   | By:    | /s/      Darlene F. McDonald                          |
|   |   | Darlene      F. McDonald                              |
|   |   | Senior      Vice-President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7311

THEBOYETTE JEFFERIES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM H. ANDREWS; CHARLIE MCCULLEN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-978)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theboyette Jefferies, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing as

frivolous his action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jefferies v. Andrews, No. CA-97-978

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 1998). 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 MEDICAL REVIEW PANEL FOR the CLAIM OF Margaret J. ROY, (D), et al.

No. 2003-CC-1617.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re St. Amant, Katherine A. Dr.;— Other; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. B, No. 2002-00518; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-0666.

Denied. See *Perritt v. Dona,*02-2061 (La.7/2/03), 849 So.2d 56.
STATE of North Carolina v. Demarcus Wayne FERRELL

No. COA17-300

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.