alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE EX REL. UTILITIES COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

271A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2019

Margaret A. Force, Teresa L. Townsend, Assistant Attorney Generals, Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, for Stein, Josh (Attorney General).

Kiran H. Mehta, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Molly Leigh McIntosh, Attorneys at Law, for Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

Matthew D. Quinn, Attorney at Law, for Sierra Club.

David T. Drooz, Lucy E. Edmondson, Staff Attorneys, for Public Staff - N.C. Utilities Commission.

James P. West, Attorney at Law, for Fayetteville Public Works Commission.

Kyle J. Smith, Attorney at Law, for Department of Defense/Federal Executive Agencies.

*883The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 14th of March 2019 by Attorney General:

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

Attorney General shall have up to and including the 26th day of April 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
* Judge John Minor Wisdom, who was originally a member of

the hearing panel, heard oral argument and joined in the decision

to certify a question to the Supreme Court of Texas. Judge

Wisdom died on May 15, 1999. The appeal is being decided by a

quorum. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). (1994).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-50862

_____________________

GLORIA MARIE HERNANDEZ, as next friend of Ruben Richard

Emeterio, a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOKAI CORPORATION; SCRIPTO-TOKAI CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

_________________________________________________________________

September 17, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS, Circuit Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant Gloria Marie Hernandez, as next friend

of Ruben Richard Emeterio, a minor, filed suit against

Defendants-Appellees Tokai Corporation and Scripto-Tokai

Corporation asserting claims of negligence and strict products

liability in the design of a butane lighter. The district court
2

granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees, and

Plaintiff-Appellant appealed.

On appeal, we recognized that the case involved a

determinative question of state law for which there was no

controlling precedent; therefore, we certified the following

question to the Supreme Court of Texas:

Under the Texas Products Liability Act of 1993, can the

legal representative of a minor child injured as a result of

the misuse of a product by another minor child maintain a

defective-design products liability claim against the

product's manufacturer where the product was intended to be

used only by adults, the risk that children might misuse the

product was obvious to the product's manufacturer and to its

intended users, and a safer alternative design was

available?

Hernandez v. Tokai Corp., 154 F.3d 224, 225 (5th Cir. 1998). The

Supreme Court of Texas, with explanation, answered that:

• none of the conditions stated in the question precludes

imposition of liability, but neither are they together

enough to establish liability; 

• proof of an available "safer alternative design", as

defined by statute, is necessary but not sufficient for

liability; the claimant must also show that the product

was unreasonably dangerous as designed, taking into

consideration the utility of the product and the risk

involved in its use; and 

• in determining whether a product is unreasonably

dangerous, the product's utility to its intended market

must be balanced against foreseeable risks associated

with use by its intended users.

Hernandez v. Tokai Corp., No. 98-0857, 1999 WL 645114, at *1

(Tex. Aug. 26, 1999). In light of this answer, we VACATE the

judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further
3

proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of

Texas. Costs shall be borne by Defendants-Appellees.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TROY IVERSON BROWN

No. 7925SC553

(Filed 6 November 1979)

Criminal Law § 155.1— failure to docket record in apt time —dismissal of appeal

Appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to docket the record on appeal within 150 days after the notice of appeal as required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 12(a).

APPEAL by defendant from *Ferrell, Judge.*Judgment entered 5 September 1978 in Superior Court, BURKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 1979.

Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the offense of murder in the second degree of one John Jackson Whisnant and was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From an active sentence of imprisonment, defendant appealed.

*533
      *Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Norma S. Harrell, for the State.*

*Triggs, Hodges & Mull, by C. Gary Triggs, for defendant appellant.*

ERWIN, Judge.

Rule 12(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

> *“Time for Filing Record on Appeal.*Within 10 days after certification of the record on appeal by the clerk of superior court, but no later than 150 days after giving notice of appeal, the appellant shall file the record on appeal with the clerk of the court to which appeal is taken.”

Notice of appeal was given on 5 September 1978; the record on appeal was filed with our clerk on 18 June 1979, some 285 days after notice of appeal was given. Rule 27(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in part: “A motion to extend the time for filing the record on appeal to a time greater than 150 days from the taking of appeal may only be made to the appellate court to which appeal has been taken.” The record in the case *sub judice*does not show that time has been extended by this Court. We are, therefore, compelled to dismiss this appeal for failure to docket the record on appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. This Court stated in *State v. Byrd*and *State v. Porter,*4 N.C. App. 494, 496, 167 S.E. 2d 95, 96 (1969):

> “It is appropriate here, and therefore, we will reiterate what this Court said in *State v. Farrell,*3 N.C. App. 196, 164 S.E. 2d 388:

> ‘The Rules of Practice in the Appellate Division of The General Court of Justice are mandatory, not directory, and must be uniformly enforced. Neither the judges, nor the solicitors, nor the attorneys, nor the parties have the right to ignore or dispense with the rule requiring docketing within the time prescribed. If the rules are not complied with, this Court may *ex mero motu*dismiss the appeal. *Carter v. Board of Alcoholic Control,*No. 519, Fall Term 1968, N. C. Supreme Court, filed 20 November 1968. And for failure to docket the record on appeal *534within the time prescribed by the rules, this appeal should be dismissed *ex mero motu.’*”

Appeal dismissed.

Judges VAUGHN and HILL concur.
----

(2004/C 78 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject:   Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

In Special Report No 9/2003 (1) covering, among other things, the issue of price of cereals, sugar, meat and milk, the Court of Auditors drew attention to a high risk of fraud in the activities of the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture.

It would appear that there have been major delays in the procedure for setting prices and export refunds and that over a two-and-a-half-year period two officials leaked the prices set for cereals before the markets opened, for personal gain.

It would also appear that the two officials were discovered and removed from their posts, but only to be transferred to another service within the same DG.

Further anomalies also appear to exist within the DG, particularly within the management set-up. In particular, a Court of Auditors senior official has stated that, despite the fact that a five-year rotation rule is applied in respect of all such posts elsewhere, the rule has never been implemented within the DG.

Given the above and the scandals that have only too often rocked the EU's administration in recent times, would the Commission state:

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

We cannot find in Special Report No 9/2003 by the European Court of Auditors any reference to a high risk of fraud in connection with the Directorate-General for Agriculture's activities.

Nor do we understand to what considerable delays in setting prices and export refunds the Honourable Member refers.

On the matter of allegations against our officials, at this stage we have only the information supplied by the Belgian judicial authorities, namely that, following a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office to the Brussels Royal Public Prosecutor's Office in 2001, an investigation was launched by an examining magistrate in Brussels. It was conducted by the Belgian authorities in appropriate confidentiality and led to the arrest of two people in Belgium, one an official of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, who was subsequently released. The case has been referred to the Belgian courts and investigation continues. It is therefore too soon to give details of the charges brought.

We will take whatever action the outcome of the proceedings indicates as necessary.

Given that criminal proceedings were under way, disciplinary proceedings were started against the official concerned. They have been suspended pending a final judgment. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations the official has already been suspended from duty.

Under our internal reform programme the Directorate-General for Agriculture is in the process of making significant improvements in market management procedures and their supervision. But no internal control system can be entirely foolproof.

Our rules on staff rotation have been applied throughout the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

----

(1)OJ C 211, 5.9.2003, p. 1.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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  StrikeForce  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Mark Joseph Corrao,  acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,  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 result of operations of the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to StrikeForce  Technologies,  Inc. and will be retained by StrikeForce
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.





/s/ Mark Joseph Corrao
----------------------
Mark Joseph Corrao
Chief Financial Officer

November 21, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert E. Swanson, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Ridgewood Energy K
Fund, LLC;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated:       February 20, 2007

        /s/  ROBERT E. SWANSON
      Name:  Robert E. Swanson

     Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
             (Principal Executive Officer)
NOTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

JULIE P. AGARWAL,
Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1825

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DC

- 0752

- 15

- 0729 -I- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

G EORGE C HUZI

, Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

R EBECCA S ARAH K RUSER

, Commercial LitigationBranch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON

, P ATRICIA M. M C C ARTHY

, C ORINNE A NNE N IOSI

.

______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is Case: 23-1825 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2024O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, H UGHES

, and C UNNINGHAM

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 5, 2024
Date Case: 23-1825 Document: 41 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7488

In Re: ALVIN JUSTIN "BUDDY" HUGGINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-97-152-4-H, CA-97-32-4-H, CR-95-51)

Submitted: December 16, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Justin "Buddy" Huggins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Justin "Buddy" Huggins filed this petition for a writ of

mandamus seeking to compel the district court to review his motion

challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). The district court declined to address Huggins' § 2255

motion prior to the resolution of his direct appeal which is still

pending in this court. To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner

bears the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate

avenues of relief and that his right to the relief sought is clear

and indisputable. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

296, 308-09 (1989). Huggins alleges that his inability to obtain

adequate trial transcripts has precluded him from perfecting a

direct appeal of his conviction. We find that Huggins has adequate

procedures available to him in the appellate process to address the

alleged inadequacies of the transcripts of his trial. See Fed. R.

App. P. 10(c); United States v. Wilson, 16 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th

Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT
13
   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
 The certification set forth below is
being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on December 31, 2008 for
the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code.
 
 Luca Luciani, the Chief Executive Officer, andClaudio Zezza, the Chief Financial Officer of TIM
ParticipaçõesS.A., each certifies that, to the best of
their 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 TIM ParticipaçõesS.A.
 
 
 
 Rio de Janeiro, June26, 2009
 
  By:
                /s/Luca
  LucianiName:
                Luca
  LucianiTitle:
                Chief Executive
      Officer
 
 
 By:
                /s/Claudio
    ZezzaName:
                Claudio
    ZezzaTitle:
                Chief Financial
      Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
    
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officer and PresidentDate:
    
    November 12, 2010
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 7, 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, 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, Raleigh, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Paul F. Khoury, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Robert L. Walker, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Goldsboro, Madeline J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of November 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of November 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 19th day of December 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,015                   7,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,538                  16,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                       251                     251
<INVENTORY>                                      5,109                   5,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,295                  29,295
<PP&E>                                          24,245                  24,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,734                   5,734
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,853                 210,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,442                  14,442
<BONDS>                                        116,349                 116,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,722                  76,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,853                 210,853
<SALES>                                         16,988                  85,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,988                  85,967
<CGS>                                           11,291                  55,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,291                  55,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   114                     240
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,276                  13,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,909)                 (1,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (734)                     847
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,175)                 (2,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,175)                 (2,591)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0



</TABLE>