alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR the ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Tim MOORE, in his official capacity, Philip Berger, in his official capacity, The North Carolina Bipartisan State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, Andrew Penry, in his official capacity, Joshua Malcolm, in his official capacity, Ken Raymond, in his official capacity, Stella Anderson, in her official capacity, Damon Circosta, in his official capacity, Stacy Eggers IV, in his official capacity, Jay Hemphill, in his official capacity, Valerie Johnson, in her official capacity, John Lewis, in his official capacity

No. 261P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 29, 2018

Kimberley Hunter, David L. Neal, Mary MacLean Asbill, Brooks Rainey Pearson, Irving Joyner, Durham, Daryl V. Atkinson, Leah J. Kang, Attorneys at Law, for NC NAACP

D. Martin Warf, Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Raleigh, Attorneys at Law, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Moore, Tim, et al.

Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Professors of Constitutional Law

***ORDER***

*593The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by Plaintiff to Bypass Court of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 22nd of August 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas, 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 29th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of August 2018 by Plaintiff to Bypass Court of Appeals:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2018 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Reply to Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Supersedeas:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2018 by Plaintiff to Expand Petition for Writ of Supersedeas:

"Motion Dismissed without prejudice to seek relief in the Superior Court by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2018 by Plaintiff to Suspend Appellate Rules:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2018."
##### 



EXHIBIT 7

STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
CHARGES

|                     |  |      |          |      |  |      |          |      |  |  |          |   |  |  |          |  
|-------------------- |  | ---- | -------- | ---- |  | ---- | -------- | ---- |  |  | -------- | - |  |  | -------- | -
|                     |  | 1999 |          | 2000 |  | 2001 |          | 2001
|                     |  |      |          |      |  |      |          |     
|                     |  |     |          |     |  |     |          | $(1)
|Loss from Operations |  |      | (96,339  | )    |  |      | (257,008 | )    |  |  | (222,785 | ) |  |  | (198,301 | )
|Fixed charges        |  |      | 71,373   |      |  |      | 168,761  |      |  |  | 184,103  |   |  |  | 163,870  |  
|                     |  |      |          |      |  |      |          |      |  |  |          |   |  |  |          |  
|                     |  |      | (167,712 | )    |  |      | (425,769 | )    |  |  | (406,888 | ) |  |  | (362,171 | )
|Ratio                |  |      | (2.35    | )    |  |      | (2.52    | )    |  |  | (2.21    | ) |  |  | (2.21    | )






|    |                                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | Solely for the convenience of the reader, euro
	amounts have been translated into U.S. dollars at the noon
	buying rate on December 31, 2001, of $0.8901 per
	1.00.

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges as
calculated by dividing income from continuing operations before
income taxes plus fixed charges by fixed charges. Fixed charges
consist of interest expense. Earnings plus fixed charges were
insufficient to cover fixed charges by
167.7 million
in 1999,
425.8 million
in 2000, and
406.9 million
for the year ended December 31, 2001.
# C_2014448EN.01001001.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/10

---

Appeal brought on 29 September 2014 by H against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10: H v Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (‘EUPM’)

(Case C-455/14 P)

(2014/C 448/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10 H v. Council of the European Union, European Commission and ‘EUPM’, insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of the personnel of the EUPM, by which the Applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if necessary, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission, referred to in Article 6 of the Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009, on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and second, for damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 10 July 2014 in Case T-271/10 H v. Council of the European Union, European Commission and ‘EUPM’, insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Head of the personnel of the EUPM, by which the Applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser-Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if necessary, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission, referred to in Article 6 of the Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009, on the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1), and second, for damages;

1

| — | refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case back to the General Court;

| — | order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant is putting forward the following pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of the right of defence |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the right of defence

| — | Infringement of Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure

| — | Error in law |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in law

| — | Infringement of European Law |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of European Law

---

(1)  OJ L 322, p. 22

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                            YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2001               2000               1999               1998               1997
                                            ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------

<S>                                         <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>
Net Income ..............................   $      1,589       $      1,902       $        744       $        450       $      1,097
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
  (excluding Treasury Stock)
     Basic ..............................    625,503,098        624,354,441        627,233,229        473,826,632        436,543,573

Shares assumed to be issued due to
  stock option ..........................      9,591,024          8,405,998          9,241,896          1,659,816                 --
                                            ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------       ------------

Adjusted average number of common
  shares and share equivalent
     Diluted ............................    635,094,122        632,760,439        636,475,125        475,486,448        436,543,573

Earnings per share:*
     Basic ..............................   $       2.54       $       3.05       $       1.19       $        .95       $       2.51
     Diluted ............................   $       2.50       $       3.00       $       1.17       $        .95       $       2.51
</Table>

----------

*    Earnings per share (EPS) for 1998 and 1997 was calculated using only Class
     B common stock as required by SFAS No. 128.
STATE v. Patrick MYLETT

6A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2019

W. Rob Heroy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Mylett, Pat

Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Ryan Y. Park, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitors General, Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

Noell P. Tin, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment *882The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of March 2019 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of March 2019."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 10th day of May 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0001067173
<NAME>     SPG REALTY CONSULTANTS INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          2,708
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     646
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          7,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0<F1>
<BONDS>                                           110
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,029<F2>
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,277
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (3,374)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,370
<DISCONTINUED>                                  1,370
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,370
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.80
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
<F2>Includes limited partner's interest in the SRC Operating Partnership of
$6,149.
</FN>



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10479 Conference Calendar

JAMES WATSON RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-129-T

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Watson Ramsey, federal prisoner #28081-077, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act as malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Ramsey argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that his lawsuit was duplicative. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The appeal is frivolous. It is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9



<CIK>                   0000920986   
<NAME>                  TeleBanc Financial Corp
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                             2,165
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>             44,241
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   45,750
<TRADING-ASSETS>                   21,110
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>        410,440
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             406,735
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               3,705
<LOANS>                            544,298
<ALLOWANCE>                        3,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,100,352
<DEPOSITS>                         522,221
<SHORT-TERM>                       479,909
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                13,212
<LONG-TERM>                        29,614
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              9,572
<PREFERRED>                        15,281
<COMMON>                           22
<OTHER-SE>                         30,521
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>     1,000,352
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    34,729
<INTEREST-INVEST>                  0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                   24,572
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   59,301
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 25,958
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 20,105
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              13,238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                      921
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                 4,093
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                    10,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    6,268
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>         6,268
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          2,597
<NET-INCOME>                       3,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                     1.73
<LOANS-NON>                        11,437
<LOANS-PAST>                       5,273
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                   425
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                    11,437
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                   3,310
<CHARGE-OFFS>                      304
<RECOVERIES>                       20 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                  3,594
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>               3,084
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                0    
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>            3,084
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors and Partners 

Regency Centers Corporation and 

Regency Centers, L.P.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-58966 and No. 333-125886) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-149856) on Form S-3ASR and(No. 333-127274) on Form S-4 of Regency Centers, L.P. of our reports February 29, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Regency Centers, L.P. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, changes in partners’ capital and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, and our report dated March 27, 2008, which respect to the combined balance sheet of Regency Retail Partners as of December 31, 2007, and the related combined statements ofoperations, changes in members’ capital, and cash flows for the period from December 21, 2006 (inception) to December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Regency Centers, L.P.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

Jacksonville, Florida 

March 28, 2008
HARPER v. The STATE.

A16A1008

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 11, 2018

David L. Harper, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Sharell Fincher Lewis, Rebecca Holmes Liles Grist, Macon, for Appellee.

Andrews, Judge.

In *Harper v. State* , 338 Ga. App. 535, 790 S.E.2d 552 (2016), we affirmed David Lamar Harper's conviction for criminal trespass pursuant to OCGA § 16-7-21 (a), reversed his conviction for criminal trespass pursuant to OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2), vacated the trial court's sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. In *State v. Harper* , 303 Ga, 144, 810 S.E.2d 484 (2018), the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider this Court's reversal of Harper's conviction for criminal trespass pursuant to OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2), and reversed our judgment on that issue by affirming Harper's conviction for criminal trespass pursuant to OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2). Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, Harper's convictions for criminal trespass pursuant to OCGA § 16-7-21 (a) and OCGA § 16-7-21 (b) (2) are affirmed, and trial court's sentence for those convictions is reinstated.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Doyle, P. J., and Ray, J., concur.
Albert S. DAUGHTRIDGE, Jr. and Mary Margret Holloman Daughtridge v. TANAGER LAND, LLC

No. 325A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Ronald H. Garber, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Daughtridge, Albert S. (Jr.), et al.

Charles S. Rountree, III, Attorney at Law, for Tanager Land, LLC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 25th of September 2018 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 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).
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant, v Jill Romero, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 871]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated December 22, 1999, as determined that the respondent was entitled to recover the sum of $30,600 at arbitration.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

At oral argument, the parties admitted that they had proceeded to arbitration in this matter, and handed a copy of that determination to the Bench. Since the appellant failed to seek interim relief from this Court, and participated in the arbitration following the Supreme Court’s denial of its application, it forfeited its right to appellate review of the Supreme Court’s order (see, *Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester,*230 AD2d 795, *affd*90 NY2d 255).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the parties’ contentions. Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 24, 2018 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00832
- CV IN RE SOUTHWEST LABO RATORIES, LLC; INTUI T DIAGNOSTIC LABORAT ORY MANAGEMENT, LLC; B.M . MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, LLC; STRATEGIC ANCILLARY SERVICES, LLC; AND M UNEAR ASHTON KOUZBAR I , Relators Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 12748 

### MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Fillmore In this original proceeding, relators complain of two discovery orders: a January 5, 2018 order granting a motion to show cause and a February 5, 2018 order on a forensic ex amination protocol. A writ of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy by appeal exists. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, not issued as a m atter of right, but at the discretion of the court. Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera , 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Id. One suc h principle is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. Thus, delaying the filing of a petition for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay. In re Int’ l Profit Assocs ., Inc. , 274– 2

–

S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). A delay of only a few months can constitute laches and result in denial of mandamus relief

. See Rivera , 858 S. W.2d at 366 (four months); In re Pendragon Transp. LLC , 423 S.W.3d 537, 540 (Tex. A pp.

— Dallas 2014, orig

. proceeding ) (six month delay and filed less than two weeks before trial); Int’l Awards, Inc. v. Medina , 900 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1995, orig. proceeding) (delay of four months and until eve of trial); Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax , 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 1995, no writ) (four months); Bailey v. Baker , 696 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding) (four

- month delay, no explanation for delay, and filed two week s prior to trial). Here, relators waited more than five months to seek mandamus relief and offer no explanation for the delay. We conclude that relators’ unexplained delay bars their right to complain of the discovery orders through a petition for writ of mandamus. In addition, based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown an abuse of discretion. Accordingly,

we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court d etermines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

180832F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE