alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAE AUSTIN**  

### QCMLBC.UA*cr Armno”?toa. 

### A&. Prlbblo

Qoutttig

rttorno~ 

### Mill.oouttty Oolehualto,Tom@

\ok/rpWbrO On6 dtitibB* IjtlOlO Vernoa" Aaaotste4 Cdl **Sfatutw,** 

### im~ioaer8=, m rind 

### a0rtatotory hurb 8a6 cPalntraano*of rorlrm r0r 

### 0 ooml~alonor8Q 

### oourt oi a bounty.
**tioa. No-oh**  **aut>otitr** oontsrtod **bt** the **CoGstltn-**Boo. A.M. Prlbblr, ~6. 8
&tlolor 8680 to 8704,veraon' A88otatea airi St~Wto8, 

### rol*tiu to “Publie Yo1~h.r~ 

### 60 not prOtid@ ror th pUEeha8e Md 88ithtMMOO Or 888108 r0 a pub110 

### rri(yhor

**by** 

### the oommlroionor8'oourtof l 

### l ouaty. 

### uerooo#tli8o the 

### rO0tthat ttlo 

### roaml8rionrn' 

### oourt ha8 

### k 'p

llod **authority** 

### todowhat aa7br aaoo88u7 i8 the exert So O? the dutle8 

### l tiormd upon ltr a PASO COUNTY ~8. SLAM, 8uprh Thuetorr, we 

### uo not **pasdv** 

### upon the 

### quostlon or whether

### or **aot the**  

### l **onuai81 onor**  

### oourt mq purobaro roalor 

### to be urod **by 8ha**  oount7 

### for oouatf buslnoem~ 

### But there 18 J&O

### more impllod 

### l utkorit~ ror th0 

### oomi~8ionur~ oourt 0r 

### a oounty 

### to purohaso~6 mintaln soalor 

### fora pub110 

### weigherthan there 18 oxprerr authority in thm Oonstitution 

### or the statutor.

It 18 our opinion that Under 

### the Qonatitution o? T6ma and the 

### l

rlrtingrtatutm relatifq 

### to tbo power8 

### Of oomal~rlonorr’ oourt sad the 0fri0a 

### 0r **publk** w6ip;hU the oomiarlonor8~ oourt of a oountr ha8 no autkorlty 

### to purOh&30 and maintain eoalor ror a publio 

### i;oighor.

**Truetine we**  hew anarercd your 

### inquiry, we 

### are **Your8** ***eq** fxulr ATTOXRXX QIXERAL **CF**T-EUS

**DStob**
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Thomas POLE

No. COA17-1393

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

NO ERROR.
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 Quarterly Report of Excellency Investment Realty
Trust, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended
June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Carlos D. Carrillo, Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Registrant.



By: /s/ Carlos D. Carrillo
   ------------------------------------------------
        Carlos D. Carrillo
        Chief Financial Officer
        (principal financial and accounting officer)
        Dated this 14th day of August, 2008
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2019

Gretchen Engel, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorneys at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez.

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

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

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Irving Joyner, Attorneys at Law, 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, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

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

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

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of January 2019 by Amicus Curiae (Former State Federal Prosecutors) for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of March 2019."

Ervin, J. recused
Mina CAREY dba Wilmington Dental Health Staffing, Plaintiff, v. Michael L. CHERUBINI, Defendant.

No. COA18-678

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED FOR ADDITIONAL FINDINGS.
## **Exhibit 31.1**

## ** **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Richard A. Lozyniak, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blue RidgePaper Products Inc (the “registrant”);

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 16, 2005 |                                  |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------|
|               |                                  |
| ** **         | ** **                            | **/S/ RICHARD A. LOZYNIAK** | ** ** | ** ** |
|               | Richard A. Lozyniak                   |   |
|               | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               9
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27
Selected Financial Data

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                             15,038
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                  0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                   11,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                        0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>        57,814
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>             33,014
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>               33,512
<LOANS>                           200,660
<ALLOWANCE>                         3,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    330,516
<DEPOSITS>                        278,272
<SHORT-TERM>                       19,120
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 1,793
<LONG-TERM>                             0
<COMMON>                            2,065
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                         29,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    330,516
<INTEREST-LOAN>                    18,706
<INTEREST-INVEST>                   4,621
<INTEREST-OTHER>                      589
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                   23,916
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                 12,685
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 13,903
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>              10,013
<LOAN-LOSSES>                         785
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                    191
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                     8,732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,054
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>          4,054
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                        1.09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                       3.95
<LOANS-NON>                           931
<LOANS-PAST>                          172
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                        0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                    3,101
<CHARGE-OFFS>                         526
<RECOVERIES>                          204
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                   3,564
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                3,564
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>               285
        



</TABLE>
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
White Mountain Titanium Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A-2 for the six
months ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned principal financial officer
of the Company, hereby certifies 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.
 
 Date:  December
1, 2009
 
 /s/ Charles E.
      JenkinsCharles
      E. Jenkins, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial
Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7260

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIUS JOSEPHUS MARSHALL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius Josephus Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Julius Josephus Marshall appeals the district court’s
order granting in part his motion for reduction of sentence

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.

Marshall , No. 2:03-cr-00076-JBF-TEM-1 (E.D. V a. filed July 3,
2008 & entered July 7, 2008). 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
NC NAACP v. MOORE, et al.

261P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 29, 2018

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

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

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2018 by North Carolina Professors of Constitutional Law Enrique Armijo, Joseph Blocher, John Charles Boger, Guy-Uriel Charles, Michael Kent Curtis, April G. Dawson, Steve Friedland, Michal J. Gerhardt, Sarah Ludington, William P. Marshall, Gene R. Nichol, Wilson Parker, Jedediah Purdy & Theordore M. Shaw for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 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).
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 09

- 00757

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.S ., A.G., and M.M., Minor Children From the 198th Judicial District Court , Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. 08

- 539

- B Honorable Charles Sherrill , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2010 Ottis Sutton appeals the trial court’s order finding that his appeal of the order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, D.S., would be frivolous. 1

1 Mina Flanagan also appeals from the same termination proceeding; however, she does not dispute the frivolous finding and raises only one issue related to the assessment of attorney’s fees. Flanagan’s complaint will be addressed along with Sutton’s once t he full reporter’s record has been filed. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. 

### § 263.405(g) (Vernon 200 8 ). Following a jury trial, the trial court terminated the parent

- child relationship between Sutton and D.S. Sutton timely filed a motion for new trial and statement of appellate points containing twenty

- seven issues for appeal, along with an affidavit of i ndigence.
See id. 

### § 263.405(b), (e) (Vernon 200 8 ). Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion for new trial, sustained Sutton’s affidavit of indigence, and ruled that the appeal was frivolous. See id. 

### § 263.405(d) (Vernon 2008) . Because the trial court found the04

- 09

- 00757

- CV

- 2

- appeal frivolous, Sutton was not entitled to a free copy of the record from the termination trial. After reviewing the record currently before us, we are unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretio n in finding the appeal frivolous. Accordingly, a review of the reporter’s record from the underlying termination proceeding is necessary to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re T.C. , 299 S.W.3d 828, 828 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2 009, no pet.). Accordingly, it is ordered that the court reporter shall, on or before thirty (30) days from the date of this opinion and order, and without cost to Sutton, prepare and file the reporter’s record containing all of the evidence admitted at the termination trial. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.6(d).

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
INTERSAL, INC. v. HAMILTON, et al.

115A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2018

David H. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Durham, for Intersal, Inc.

Brian Rabinovitz, Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Charles G. Whitehead, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Amar Majmundar, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, et al.

Jeffrey A. Doyle, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joshua D. Neighbors, Attorney at Law, for Friends of Queen Anne's Revenge (Non-Profit Corporation).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Defendants to Stay Briefing:

*739"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of November 2018."
#### Sentry Contracting, Inc., Respondent, v Traveler’s Property Casualty Corp., Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 15]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2000, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring that defendant insurer is required to provide plaintiff with a defense in the underlying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Insofar as the complaint in the underlying arbitration proceeding asserts that plaintiff contractor’s negligence caused property damage not redressable under the contract between the parties to the arbitration, the allegations of the complaint state claims falling within the liability coverage purchased by plaintiff from defendant insurer. Accordingly, defendant’s duty to provide plaintiff with a defense against the claims asserted in the arbitration proceeding is triggered, notwithstanding the assertion in the arbitration of additional claims against plaintiff for breach of contract and fraud not covered under the policy *(see, Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co.,*78 NY2d *35661; *International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co.,*35 NY2d 322). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 TELE NORTE LESTE PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Tele Norte
Leste Participações S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 2004 of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated: June 29, 2005
    /s/ Ronaldo Iabrudi dos Santos PereiraName:
    Ronaldo Iabrudi dos Santos PereiraTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer Dated: June 29, 2005
    /s/ Marcos GrodetzkyName:
    Marcos GrodetzkyTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Aaron JACKSON

No. 145P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 24, 2018

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, Patrick M. Megaro, Attorney at Law, for Jackson, Aaron

Lauren Clemmons, Raleigh, R. Andrew Womble, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of May 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 24th of October 2018."
Slip Op. 04-98

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________

:

TIMKEN U.S. CORPORATION, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

NSK LTD., NSK-RHP EUROPE LTD., : Court No.

RHP BEARINGS LTD., NSK BEARINGS : 00-08-00385

EUROPE LTD. and NSK CORPORATION; :

NTN BEARING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, :

NTN BOWER CORPORATION, NTN-BCA :

CORPORATION and NTN CORPORATION; :

SKF USA INC. and SKF GmbH; FAG :

KUGELFISCHER GEORG SCHÄFER AG, THE :

BARDEN CORPORATION (U.K.) LIMITED, :

THE BARDEN CORPORATION, FAG ITALIA :

S.p.A. and FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION; :

KOYO SEIKO CO., LTD. and KOYO :

CORPORATION OF U.S.A., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

________________________________________:

JUDGMENT

This Court, having received and reviewed the United States

International Trade Commission’s (“Commission”) Views of the

Commission (“Remand Determination”) in Timken U.S. Corporation v.

United States, 28 CIT ___, ___, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (2004),

comments of Timken U.S. Corporation, responses of defendantintervenors, NTN Bearing Corporation of America et al. and NSK Ltd.

et al., the Commission’s rebuttal comments, and after hearing oral

arguments from counsel on August 5, 2004, holds that the Commission

duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Determination filed by the Commission

on April, 26, 2004, is affirmed in its entirety; and it is further
Court No. 00-08-00385 Page 2

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this

case is dismissed.

 /s/ Nicholas Tsoucalas 

 NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: August 9, 2004

New York, New York