alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jonathan E. BRUNSON, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF the 12TH JUDICIARY, Office of the District Attorney for the 12th Prosecutorial District, North Carolina Department of Justice, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, and the State of North Carolina, Defendants.

No. COA18-569

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
#### BERT W. OESTREICHER in her capacity as Trustee for RACHEL W. OESTREICHER (now RACHEL O. HASPEL) and DAVE OESTREICHER, II v. AMERICAN NATIONAL STORES, INC. a/k/a NATIONAL MANUFACTURE & STORES COMPANY, d/b/a JOHNSTON’S L & S FURNITURE COMPANY

No. 7519SC522

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Rules of Civil Procedure § 54— judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims — judgment not appealable

Plaintiff’s appeal from a judgment adjudicating fewer than all the claims asserted and which contains no determination by the trial judge that there is no just reason for delay is premature and is therefore dismissed. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b).

Appeal by plaintiff from *Seay, Judge.*Judgment entered 26 March 1975 in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 October 1975.

Plaintiff landlord brought this action against defendant tenant asserting three claims for relief: (1) a claim to recover damages “in excess of $10,000.00” because of defendant’s breach of the lease agreement in understating the amount of net sales upon which percentage rental was computed and paid; (2) a claim to recover punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 because defendant willfully and fraudulently reported the net sales to plaintiff over a continuing period of time and fraudulently failed to pay plaintiff amounts due under the percentage provisions of the lease; and (3) a claim to recover damages in the amount of $30,000.00 for defendant’s anticipated breach of the lease by threatening to vacate the premises prior to expiration of the lease. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was allowed as to the second and third claims but was denied as to the first claim. Plaintiff appealed.

*Carlton, Rhodes & Thurston by Richard F. Thurston and David Oestreicher II for plaintiff appellant.*

*Coughenowr & Linn by Stable Linn and William D. Kenerly for defendant appellee.*

PARKER, Judge.

The judgment from which appeal is attempted adjudicates fewer than all of the claims asserted. It contains no determination by the trial judge that “there is no just reaason for delay.” *331The judgment is not final and not presently “subject to review either by appeal or otherwise.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b) ; *Raynor v. Mutual of Omaha,*24 N.C. App. 573, 211 S.E. 2d 458 (1975) ; *Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp.,*25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975), *cert. denied,*288 N.C. 241 (1975) ; *Arnold v. Howard,*24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974).

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Morris and Martin concur.
tagg_ex105.htm


EXHIBIT 10.05


 





 




  





1











  







 




  





2











  









  





3











  







 





	Assignor:	 	 	Assignee:	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Westrock Land Corp.	 	 	Magna Group LLC	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Gary Powers

	 	 	
/s/ Joshua Sason

	 
	
Name: Gary Powers

	 	 	
Joshua Sason, CEO

	 
	
Title: President

	 	 	
 

	 







 





	Company:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	TAGLIKEME CORP.	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Richard Elliot-Square

	 	 	
 

	 
	
Richard Elliot-Square, CEO/President

	 	 	
 

	 













  





4
#### STATE ex rel. Elery CLEMENT, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2188.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Clement, Elery, Jr;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 12610; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 02 KW 268.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Ice Blast Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rory Clarke, Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

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





/s/ Rory Clarke

By  ____________________________________

Rory Clarke

Director, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Date:  April 16, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4924 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4924

 To allow the Secretary of the Interior to clear a proposed project in 
   the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2010

Mrs. Bachmann introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow the Secretary of the Interior to clear a proposed project in 
   the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River, 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. LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), to the extent that funds 
are made available for this purpose by an Act other than this Act, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall find consistent with the Wild and 
Scenic Rivers Act the construction of a four-lane highway bridge over 
the Lower St. Croix River in accordance with the Section 7 Evaluation 
issued by the National Park Service in October 2005.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Salim Abdu GOULD

No. 91P14-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Salim Abdu Gould, William D. Spence, Attorney at Law, Kinston, for Gould, Salim Abdu.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kenneth A. Sack, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th of July 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:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of July 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of July 2018 by Defendant for Writ of Immediate Appeal:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of July 2018 by Defendantt in Limine:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### Myrtle A. Depew, Joined by Her Husband, Frank Depew, and Frank Depew, *Appellants,*v. J. R. Odom, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed May 11, 1928.

*Dame & Rogers,*for Appellants;

*Alto Adams*and *W. H. Wolfe,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J. concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 23, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 23, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19A0419. IN THE INTEREST OF J. M. ET AL., CHILDREN (MOTHER).
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On October 10, 2018, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than October 22, 2018. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION




Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Each of the undersigned, Shaun E. McAlmont, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln Educational Services Corporation (the “Company”), and Cesar Ribeiro, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”).





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his respective knowledge:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




Date: May 7, 2010




/s/ Shaun E. McAlmontShaun E. McAlmontPresident & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Cesar RibeiroCesar RibeiroChief Financial Officer
#### Connally & Brother, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Peck *&*Bowman, defendants in error.

The 5th section of Act 28th, October 12th, 1870, which authorizes a defendant in a *Ji. fa.*to deny under oath the plaintiff’s affidavit that the taxes due upon the debt had been paid, and providing that the issue thus made shall be returned and tried as other affidavits of illegality, stands upon the same footing as the first and second sections of the Act, and is not unconstitutional. Warner, Judge, dissenting.

Relief Act of October, 1870. Constitutional law. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. April Term, 1871.

Peck & Bowman had a *ji. fa.*against Connally and Brother levied upon defendants’ land. They made affidavit, on 11th April, 1871, that said *fi. fa.*was proceeding illegally, because it was founded upon a debt contracted prior to June, 1865, and plaintiffs had levied it without having made an affidavit that they had paid all legal taxes due on said debt as required by the Relief Act of October, 1870. The sheriff returned the papers into Court then in session. Plaintiff’s counsel asked the Court to order the sheriff to proceed in spite of said affidavit. Defendant’s counsel objected that the illegality was returnable to the next term of the Court, and could not be sooner heard. The plaintiff’s counsel rejoined that said affidavit was a nullity because said Act was unconstitutional. Upon that ground the Court ordered the *fi. fa.*to proceed. This is assigned as error.

*431Collier & Hoyt for plaintiffs in error.

A. W. Hamnond & Son for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

We are unable to see any reason why, if this Act is constitutional, as applied to actions pending, it is not equally so as to judgments and executions. There is the same propriety for saying to the owner of a judgment, yoii shall not proceed upon it until you pay to the State the taxes you owe upon it, as there is in saying to a plaintiff in a pending suit, you shall not have a judgment until you pay the taxes.

Indeed, it seems to me there is less objection to the law as applied to judgments; no time is fixed. The plaintiff can proceed whenever he makes the affidavit. If he is not ready to make it to-day, if he cannot make it, it is in his power to qualify himself by paying the taxes and to make it whenever he gets ready.

As we have construed this law, to-wit: that it only denies the rights of the plaintiff to go on until he pays and swears he has paid the tax, we think the restraint nothing but the legitimate and proper exercise of the rights of the State. It impairs no contracts, it divests no rights; it simply says, “do your duty before you use the. State’s process to compel others to do their duty to you.”

Without doubt, a judgment is taxable property. Without doubt, under our laws, in force for many years, this debt owes to the State its burden, and it seems to us *clear*that it is in the power of the State to deny the use of its process to enforce it, until the burden is discharged.

Judgment reversed.

Lochrane, Chief Justice, concurred and Warner, Judge, dissented, but neither furnished any opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58201-58205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19901]



[[Page 58201]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 05-30]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 05-30 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: September 29, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 58202]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.038


[[Page 58203]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.039


[[Page 58204]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.040


[[Page 58205]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN05OC05.041

[FR Doc. 05-19901 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4903 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2010 

Mrs. BACHMANN (for herself, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. 

HALL of Texas, Mr. ISSA, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. 

INGLIS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. LATTA, and Mr. KING of Iowa) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and 

Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, House 

Administration, Appropriations, and Rules, 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 repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA. 

4 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec5 tion and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and 

6 the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4903 IH

1 are restored or revived as if such Act had not been en2 acted. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7927

ROBERT LEE BROCK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter E. Hoffman, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-40-2-MC)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

attempt to file a complaint. 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. Brock v. Smith,

No. CA-95-40-2-MC (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 1995). 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
Exhibit 14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Supervisory Board
DaimlerChrysler AG:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-13160) on Form F-3 of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding
Corporation and the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082, 333-8998, 333-86934 and 333-86936) of
DaimlerChrysler AG of our report dated February 21, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of DaimlerChrysler AG as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report appears in
DaimlerChrysler AG's 2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F. Our report refers to the change in DaimlerChrysler's method of accounting for stock-based compensation in 2003 and
DaimlerChrysler's adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities  an interpretation of ARB
No. 51," in 2003 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," in 2002.

KPMG
Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Stuttgart,
Germany
February 28, 2005

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE CFO(****1)**

 

Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofFavrille, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.2, I, Tamara Seymour, Chief FinancialOfficer of Favrille, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Favrille, Inc. for theperiod covered by the Report.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Favrille,Inc. and will be retained by Favrille, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date   | August 12, 2005 |                    | By | /s/  Tamara A. Seymour |   |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|----|----------------------------------|--------|
|   |            | Tamara A. Seymour,      |
|   |            | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

____________________________

(1) This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates,is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not tobe incorporated by reference into any filing of Favrille, Inc. under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


The Board of Directors
Infosys Technologies Limited



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-32196) on Form S-8 of Infosys Technologies Limited of our report dated April
10, 2003, relating to the balance sheets of Infosys Technologies Limited as of
March 31, 2003, and 2002, and the related statements of income, stockholders'
equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended March 31, 2003, and the related Financial Statement
Schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2003, annual report on Form 20-F
of Infosys Technologies Limited.

                                                                        /s/ KMPG

                                                                            KMPG


Bangalore, India
May 12, 2002