alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600179

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

OLIVER B. KRAGELUND

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel David M. Jones, USMC.

For Appellant: Captain Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 31 August 2016

_________________________

Before PALMER, FULTON, MILLER, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

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

350A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 20, 2017

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, for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.

Dwight W. Allen, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Britton H. Allen, Attorney at Law, 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, 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 16th of November 2017 by Amicus Anchun Jean Su for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of November 2017."
# Official Journal L 168/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 168 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6412 May 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 168

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6412 May 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/763 of 23 April 2021 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the supervisory reporting and public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities  (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/763 of 23 April 2021 laying down implementing technical standards for the application of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the supervisory reporting and public disclosure of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities  (
  1
  )

1

1

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Jay H. Ferguson, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorneys at Law, Durham, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of July 2018 by North Carolina Sate Conference of the NAACP for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."
Diandra N. WEBB v. Donnie HARRISON, Wake County Jail

No. 166P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 5, 2018

Ms. Diandra N. Webb, for Webb, Diandra N.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Raleigh, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Harrison, Donnie, et al.

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Raleigh, Assistant Attorney General

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 1st of June 2018 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of June 2018."
#### Marlon SIMMONS v. CTL DISTRIBUTION and Darren Tomas.

No. 2003-CC-2378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 26, 2003.

In re CTL Distribution et al.; Tomas, Darren;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. James, 23rd Judicial. District Court Div. D, No.. 28,335; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 2003-C-968.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wilbert RIDEAU.

No. 2003-OK-2347.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 21, 2003.

In re Rideau, Wilbert;—Defendant; Applying for Enforcement of Transfer of Case, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 01-CR-015321.

Stay denied. Motion denied. The motion to enforce transfer is not properly before this Court because it was not presented in the first instance to the court that issued the order of transfer, the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. In its 1964 opinion, this Court held that “the ruling of the trial judge denying the state’s motion for a change of venue in this case is reversed, the motion is granted, and, accordingly, the trial judge is ordered to grant a change of venue in this ease for the trial of the defendant, Wilbert Rideau, to a parish in this state outside the range of those reached by televised broadcasts beamed by KPLC-TV, Lake Charles, Louisiana.” *State v. Rideau,*246 La. 451, 165 So.2d 282, 285 (1964). Ultimately, it was the trial court that issued the order transferring venue. Moreover, any jurisdictional defects in the indictment returned against defendant must first be challenged in the district court currently exercising jurisdiction over this proceeding via a motion to quash pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 532(8), and cannot properly be urged for the first time in this Court.

TRAYLOR, J., recused.

JOHNSON, J., concurs in the result.

KNOLL, J., I would concur in the result to deny the motion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1199

KATHERINE HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; UNION 

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; CHARLOTTEMECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; STANLY 

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; ALBEMARLE CITY 

SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; NORTH CAROLINA 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES; BARRY SHEPHERD, in his individual capacity; 

KATHRYN AUGER, in her individual capacity; GARY AUSTIN, in his individual 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00702-CCE-JEP)

Submitted: May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Katherine Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. King, III, Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS, 

PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North 

Carolina; Terry LaMonte Wallace, WALLACE CHILDERS PLLC, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Kirk London Bowling, BOWLING LAW FIRM, PLLC, Albemarle, North 

Carolina; Robert Michael Curran, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Katherine Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint 

as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of 

Educ., No. 1:16-cv-00702-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2017). We deny Harris’ motion 

to amend her complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Webster Jean MACIUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-2168.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 5, 2003.

Webster Jean Macius, Mayo, Pro Se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*See Edwards v. State,*830 So.2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); *Simpkins v. State,*784 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ„ concur.
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Gretchen Engel, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers.

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by North Carolina Council of Churches for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of July 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).
Nathaniel BRYANT and Joseph L. Gillespie v. Charles Wilbur BRYANT and Carl Bryant

No. 74P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 14, 2017.

Nathaniel Bryant, for Bryant, Nathaniel.

Joseph L. Gillespie, for Gillespie, Joseph L.

Paul S. Messick, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Bryant, Charles Wilbur, et al

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff (Nathaniel Bryant) on the 13th of March 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*2"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of March 2017."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILLIP CORDELL WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-99-360, CA-01-478-A)

Submitted: December 20, 2001 Decided: December 28, 2001

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Cordell Williams, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil

Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Cordell Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-99-360;

CA-01-478-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23






                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Unitholders of Regency Centers, L.P. and the Board of Directors
of Regency Centers Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-58966) on Form S-3 of Regency Centers, L.P., of our report dated January 31,
2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P.
as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in partners' capital, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and the related financial
statement schedules, which reports appear in the December 31, 2002, annual
report on Form 10-K of Regency Centers, L.P.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Jacksonville, Florida
March 31, 2003
ALLISON PALMER GEORGE E. McCREA 

325/659-6583 

325/658-6831 (fax) 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Third Court of Appeals 

P.O. Box 12547 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

51 ST & 119TH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

124 W. Beauregard 

San Angelo, Texas 76903 

325/655-6116 

January 28, 2015 

Style: Julie Ann Martinez, Appellant v. The State of Texas-Case # 03-14-00065-CR Trial 

Court# D-13-0127-SB, 391st District Court 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

The State believes that the trial court ruled correctly in this case. With regard to 

the Anders brief filed by Appellant, the State hereby notifies the Court that it will not 

respond on the merits to the points raised and conceded by Appellant's brief. Please 

file this letter response with the papers in the cause and bring it to the attention of the 

appropriate members of the Court or its staff. 

cc: Kirk Hawkins 

Sincerely, 

VMeagan 

... ~.c£- White 

Asst. District Attorney 

51 st Judicial District 

124 W Beauregard, Ste. B 

San Angelo, TX 76903 

(325) 659-6583 

(325) 658-6831 FAX 

TSB# 24060973 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00065-CR

3936212

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/28/2015 3:32:23 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/28/2015 3:32:23 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Alexis SANTOS v. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 34P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Mr. John M. Kirby, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Santos, Alexis

Mr. Charles T. Francis, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for NC Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Ms. Marvealavette Jackson Francis, Attorney at Law, for NC Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Ms. Ruth Sheehan, Attorney at Law

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 24th of January 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 9th of May 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
acu_10q033113ex1010b.htm



Exhibit 10.10(b)




 


AMENDED AND RESTATED


SECURED REVOLVING NOTE


 



	
$40,000,000

	  
	  	
Maturity Date:  April 5, 2017












FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ACME UNITED CORPORATION, a Connecticut corporation (“Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order of HSBC Bank, National Association or the holder (the “Lender”) of this Secured Revolving Note (this “Revolving Note”) at 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York or such other place of payment as the holder of this Revolving Note may specify from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal amount of Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000) or such other principal amount as Lender has advanced to Borrower, together with interest at a rate as specified in the Loan Agreement (defined hereafter).







This Revolving Note is the Revolving Note referred to in, and is executed and delivered in connection with, that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated  April 5, 2012, by and between Borrower and Lender (as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented in accordance with its terms, the “Loan Agreement”), and is entitled to the benefit and security of the Loan Agreement and the other Loan Documents (as defined in the Loan Agreement), to which reference is made for a statement of all of the terms and conditions thereof.  All payments shall be made in accordance with the Loan Agreement.  All terms defined in the Loan Agreement shall have the same definitions when used herein, unless otherwise defined herein.  An Event of Default under the Loan Agreement shall constitute a default under this Revolving Note.







Borrower waives presentment and demand for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest under the UCC or any applicable law.   Borrower agrees to make all payments under this Revolving Note without setoff, recoupment or deduction and regardless of any counterclaim or defense.  This Revolving Note has been negotiated and delivered to Lender and is payable in the State of New York.  This Revolving Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York, excluding any conflicts of law rules or principles that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.







This Revolving Note amends and restates in its entirety and is given in substitution for (but not in satisfaction of) that certain Revolving Note dated April 5, 2012 executed by Borrower in favor of Lender in the original principal amount of $30,000,000.







[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]









1













 





 



	  	  
	
BORROWER FOR ITSELF

	
ACME UNITED CORPORATION


	  	  
	  	  
	 	
By:_________________________________


	 	
Name:


	 	
Title














 


 


2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 21, 2009 

l1014 

Order 

 

October 21, 2009 

137551 & (14) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137551 

 COA: 287648 

Kent CC: 08-003839-FH 

TROY TOD TROSTLE, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of April 8, 2009, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the 

trial court for resentencing. An indeterminate prison sentence is a departure from an 

intermediate sanction under the sentencing guidelines. People v Stauffer, 465 Mich 633 

(2002). The trial court did not articulate substantial and compelling reasons that justified 

the departure sentence that it imposed. On remand, the trial court shall sentence the 

defendant to an intermediate sanction, or articulate on the record substantial and 

compelling reasons for departing from such a sentence. In all other respects, leave to 

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In the Matter of Joseph DOMINGUEZ. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 129 DB 2002.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 26, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, The Report and Recommendations of The *669Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated May 2, 2003, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that JOSEPH DOMINGUEZ, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.