alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Tilmon Charles GOLPHIN

441A98-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Mr. Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles

Mr. Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Golphin, Tilmon Charles

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

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

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

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

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

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

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

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

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

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

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

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

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by Professors John Charles Boger and Robert P. Mosteller 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).
Table of Contents


EXHIBIT 13.2

TELEMIG CELULAR PARTICIPACOES S.A.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ENACTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Telemig Celular Participações S.A. (the "Company") is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as enacted pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:   
(A) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  
(B) the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   
Date: June 30, 2005

|                                |  |  |  | 
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|/s/ Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo |  |  |  | 
|Ricardo Del Guerra Perpetuo     |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer         |  | 

---
Order entered August 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00575-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.N.L., H.T.L. AND A.K.L., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-56250-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 26, 2020 second motion to extend 

time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no 

later than September 28, 2020. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ 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 prosecuti ng attorney was dire cted 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 appli cation for leave to appeal is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302 (H)(1), in lieu of gran ting leave to appeal,
we VACATE the sentence of the Kent Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing. An indetermin ate prison sentence is a departure from an
intermediate sanction under th e sentencing guidelines. People v Stauffer , 465 Mich 633 (2002). The trial court did not articulate subs tantial and compelling re asons that justified the departure sentence that it imposed. On remand, the trial court shall sentence the
defendant to an inte rmediate sanction, or articulat e on the record substantial and compelling reasons for departing from such a se ntence. 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.
#### Willard WEBSTER, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3287.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 15, 2003.

Laura L. Whiteside of Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Tampa, for Appellant.

Alan Abramowitz and Ralph J. McMur-phy of Department of Children and Families, Wildwood, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, J.

Willard Webster appeals from a final order of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Office of Appeal Hearings, upholding DCF’s decision not to purchase certain computer software for him. We affirm.

Mr. Webster, a profoundly developmentally disabled individual, obtains assistance available through Florida’s federally-approved home and community-based services waiver program authorized under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(4)(B) (2002). While the efforts to obtain services for Mr. Webster by his family have largely been successful, DCF refused to provide certain computer software to assist with his language development skills, concluding that it was not “medically necessary” and did not constitute “durable medical equipment” as those terms are defined in the administrative regulations and program manuals.

Admittedly, the applicable statutes and regulations present a quagmire of almost indescribable complexity for both us and Mr. Webster’s family. Nonetheless, based on our examination of the record, it appears that DCF’s order is based on competent, substantial evidence, and that the agency’s construction of the applicable statutes and regulations is not clearly erroneous. *See Republic Media, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp.,*714 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). We find no merit in the other issue raised by Mr. Webster. Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

COMPASS BANK                                                        COMPASS BANK
[LOGO]                                                             P.O. BOX 2006
                                                           DOTHAN, ALABAMA 36302
                                                                    334-712-7030

March 27, 2001

Mr. Richard Bailey
Boyd Bros. Transportation, Inc.
3275 Highway 30
Clayton, AL 36016

RE:      CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPASS BANK ("BANK") AND BOYD
         BROS. TRANSPORTATION, INC. ("BORROWER") DATED APRIL 11, 2000

Dear Richard:

As of December 31, 2000, Boyd Bros. Transportation, Inc. was in violation of
Section 6.01 and Section 6.05 of the above referenced Credit and Security
Agreement (as amended, the "Agreement"). The Borrower has requested and Bank
has agreed to waive the defaults under the Loan Agreement existing as of
December 31, 2000 solely by virtue of the violations of Section 6.01 and
Section 6.05 of the Agreement, as outlined above. This one-time limited waiver
is effective only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which given
and nothing contained or provided herein shall be construed as granting a
waiver of any default as specifically set forth herein or as allowing Borrower
to violate or fail to perform fully (i) Section 6.01 and Section 6.05 of
Agreement after December 31, 2000 or (ii) any other provisions of the Loan
Documents at any time.

Further, Compass Bank agrees to modify the covenants of these two section as
follows:

         Cash Flows-To-Current Maturities of Long-Term Debt
         This covenant references in Section 6.01 of the above-referenced
         Agreement will be modified from 1.2:1.0 to 1.1:1.0. This modified
         covenant will be tested at June 30, 2001. On July 1, 2001, the covenant
         will return to 1.2:1.0 as defined in the Agreement.

         Debt-to-Tangible Net Worth
         This covenant referenced in Section 6.05 of the above-referenced
         Agreement will be modified from 2.75:1.00 to 2.8:1.0. This modified
         covenant will be tested at June 30, 2001. Only July 1, 2001, the
         covenant will return to 2.75:1.00 as defined in the Agreement.

         Tangible Net Worth is defined as the Borrower's Net Worth less any
         intangible assets, receivables from shareholders or related entities.

<PAGE>   2
If the terms of this letter are acceptable to you, please execute this letter
below and return the original hereof to the Bank.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jim Tate
------------------------------

Jim Tate
Vice President

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED;

BOYD BROS. TRANSPORTATION, INC.

By:  [signature illegible]
    --------------------------

Its: CFO
     -------------------------
Independent Auditors' Consent



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

We consent to 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,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, 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, 2001, and related schedule, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Regency
Centers, L.P.



                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

                                    KPMG LLP



Jacksonville, Florida
April 12, 2002
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Rashad MITCHELL

No. 4P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Ben G. Irons, II, Attorney at Law, Greenville, for Mitchell, Travis.

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of January 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of January 2018 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of January 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4386 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rely on State 

examinations for certain financial institutions, and for 

other purposes. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4386 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Money Remittances 

3 Improvement Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN REPORT5 ING REQUIREMENTS. 

6 (a) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

7 ON MONETARY INSTRUMENT TRANSACTIONS.—Section 

8 5318(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para12 graph (7); and 

13 (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(6) rely on examinations conducted by a State 

16 supervisory agency of a category of financial institu17 tion, if the Secretary determines that— 

18 ‘‘(A) the category of financial institution is 

19 required to comply with this subchapter and 

20 regulations prescribed under this subchapter; or 

21 ‘‘(B) the State supervisory agency exam22 ines the category of financial institution for 

23 compliance with this subchapter and regulations 

24 prescribed under this subchapter; and’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 4386 RFS

1 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

2 OF OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.—Section 128 of 

3 Public Law 91–508 (12 U.S.C. 1958) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘this title’’ and inserting ‘‘this 

5 chapter and section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insur6 ance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b)’’; and 

7 (2) by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘The 

8 Secretary may rely on examinations conducted by a 

9 State supervisory agency of a category of financial 

10 institution, if the Secretary determines that the cat11 egory of financial institution is required to comply 

12 with this chapter and section 21 of the Federal De13 posit Insurance Act (and regulations prescribed 

14 under this chapter and section 21 of the Federal De15 posit Insurance Act), or the State supervisory agen16 cy examines the category of financial institution for 

17 compliance with this chapter and section 21 of the 

18 Federal Deposit Insurance Act (and regulations pre19 scribed under this chapter and section 21 of the 

20 Federal Deposit Insurance Act).’’. 

21 (c) CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES.—In 

22 issuing rules to carry out section 5318(a)(6) of title 31, 

23 United States Code, and section 128 of Public Law 91– 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 4386 RFS

1 508 (12 U.S.C. 1958), the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

2 consult with State supervisory agencies. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamie Peter ERIKSEN

No. COA18-119

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 18, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 17, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, Brian W. Stull, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

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

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

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

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, For Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

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

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.

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 Fund, Inc.

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

*374The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by North Carolina Advocates for Justice 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).
ohgi_ex105.htm


Exhibit 10.5


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 




  





5











  






 


 




  





6











  






 


 




  





7











  






 


 




  





8











  






 


 




  





9











  






 


 




  





10











  






 


 




  





11











  






 


 




  





12











  






 


 




  





13











  






 


 




  





14











  






 


 




  





15











  






 


 




  





16











  






 


 


17
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4627 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4627

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize coverage 
of post-mastectomy water-resistant coverings if they are determined to 
 be consistent with clinical protocol or medically necessary to reduce 
             the risk of infection, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2014

   Mr. Posey (for himself and Ms. Wasserman Schultz) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize coverage 
of post-mastectomy water-resistant coverings if they are determined to 
 be consistent with clinical protocol or medically necessary to reduce 
             the risk of infection, 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 ``Post-Mastectomy Infection Risk 
Reduction Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF POST-MASTECTOMY WATER-RESISTANT COVERINGS 
              IF THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH MEDICAL 
              PROTOCOL OR MEDICALLY NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE RISK OF 
              INFECTION.

    Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Such term includes a 
post-mastectomy water-resistant covering insofar as the Secretary 
determines that such a covering is consistent with clinical protocol or 
is medically necessary to reduce the risk of infection after a 
mastectomy.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. James Edwards ARRINGTON

280A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2017

*735James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Arrington, James Edward.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of August 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2017."
EXHIBIT 12  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
 LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST / LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Amounts in thousands except ratio amounts)
 Year ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005Earnings before fixed charges:Income before allocation of minority interest
and income from investments in unconsolidated
subsidiaries (1)
    
    $
    150,936
    
    
    $
    148,415
    
    
    $
    145,112
    
    
    $
    157,715
    
    
    $
    211,942Add: Interest expense
    
    
    144,367
    
    
    
    148,435
    
    
    
    120,218
    
    
    
    102,813
    
    
    
    101,767Depreciation expense on capd interest
    
    
    1,607
    
    
    
    1,245
    
    
    
    5,393
    
    
    
    4,437
    
    
    
    3,829Amortization of deferred
financing costs
    
    
    5,202
    
    
    
    4,461
    
    
    
    3,999
    
    
    
    3,795
    
    
    
    3,849Earnings before fixed charges
    
    $
    302,112
    
    
    $
    302,556
    
    
    $
    274,722
    
    
    $
    268,760
    
    
    $
    321,387Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    144,367
    
    
    $
    148,435
    
    
    $
    120,218
    
    
    $
    102,813
    
    
    $
    101,767Amortization of deferred financing charges
    
    
    5,202
    
    
    
    4,461
    
    
    
    3,999
    
    
    
    3,795
    
    
    
    3,849Capitalized interest
    
    
    7,640
    
    
    
    19,958
    
    
    
    45,697
    
    
    
    30,837
    
    
    
    17,748Fixed charges
    
    
    157,209
    
    
    
    172,854
    
    
    
    169,914
    
    
    
    137,445
    
    
    
    123,364Preferred share distributions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Preferred unit distributions
    
    
    21,012
    
    
    
    21,012
    
    
    
    17,126
    
    
    
    13,691
    
    
    
    12,095Combined fixed charges
    
    $
    178,221
    
    
    $
    193,866
    
    
    $
    187,040
    
    
    $
    151,136
    
    
    $
    135,459Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.92
    
    
    
    1.75
    
    
    
    1.62
    
    
    
    1.96
    
    
    
    2.61Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
    
    
    1.70
    
    
    
    1.56
    
    
    
    1.47
    
    
    
    1.78
    
    
    
    2.37
 (1)
    
    Amounts for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 have been
reclassified to present properties that have been sold during 2009. As a result, operations have
been reclassified to discontinued operations from continuing operations for all periods presented.