alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. George E. HARRISON

No. 102P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, for Harrison, George E.

James Aldean Webster, III, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Craig Blitzer, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 5th of April 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of April 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 7th of June 2018."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         142,097
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,654,548
<ALLOWANCES>                                   55,000
<INVENTORY>                                    3,757,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,692,095
<PP&E>                                         4,648,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,010,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 76,832,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,178,559
<BONDS>                                        41,998,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       225,827
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,830,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   76,832,182
<SALES>                                        21,639,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,319,835
<CGS>                                          15,966,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,417,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               27,315
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,716,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,112,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (938,981)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,772,992)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,772,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.08)


</TABLE>
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32001R1339

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001 of 28 June 2001 extending the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency***Official Journal L 181 , 04/07/2001 P. 0011 - 0011*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1339/2001

of 28 June 2001

extending the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) In adopting Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001(3), the Council provided that Articles 1 to 11 thereof will have effect in those Member States which have adopted the euro as their single currency.

(2) However, it is important that the euro should enjoy the same level of protection in those Member States which have not adopted it and the necessary provisions should be taken to that end,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The application of Articles 1 to 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 shall be extended to those Member States which have not adopted the euro as their single currency.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 2002. However, it shall apply from the date of its publication to notes and coins which have not yet been issued but which it is intended to issue.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 28 June 2001.

For the Council

The President

B. Rosengren

(1) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000, p. 264.

(2) Opinion delivered on 3 May 2001 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) See page 6 of this Official Journal.
**Exhibit
      32. Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
      of** **Atlantic
      Coast Federal Corporation Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002**





Robert
      J.
      Larison, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dawna R. Miller, Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation
      (the “Company”), each certify in their capacity as an officer of the Company
      that they have reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for
      the
      quarter ended March 31, 2008 and that to the best of their
      knowledge:





1.
            the
                report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.





The
      purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
      1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002.





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.





Date:
      May
      14, 2008





/s/
                Robert J. Larison, Jr.
            
            /s/
                Dawna R. MillerRobert
                J. Larison, Jr.
            
            Dawna
                R. MillerPresident
                and
            
            Senior
                Vice President andChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.3



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use of our report dated January 29, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Gray Television, Inc. (formerly Gray
Communications Systems, Inc.), included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Bull Run Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2002.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-91296, Form S-8 No. 333-56125 and Form S-8 No. 333-39700)
pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining to the Bull Run
Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan and the Registration
Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-84833) pertaining to the issuance of shares of BR
Holding, Inc. of our reports dated January 29, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Gray Communications Systems, Inc., included
herein.



ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
October 9, 2002
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Anju
      Tandon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      TNT
      Designs, Inc.. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 fairly presents in all
      material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TNT
      Designs, Inc.





Date:
      June 23, 2006




*/s/
                  Anju
                  Tandon*
                *Anju
                  Tandon*
                *President,
                  Chief Executive*
                *and
                  Financial Officer*
|  | (1) | the      Small Business Issuer's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter      ended March 31, 2009 (the "Report"), to which this statement is filed as      an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended;  and |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Small      Business Issuer. |
|--|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  May      5, 2009 |  By: |   /s/      Louis E. Ryan                    |
|------------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |      |           Louis E. Ryan           |
|                                     |      |           Chief Financial Officer |
|                                     |      |                                                  |
|                                     |      |                                                  |
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. MARK VALDEZ, ALFRED OLEA ENRIQUEZ AND DONALD ELMER SHAPIRO, Respondents.

No. 8010

January 16, 1975

530 P.2d 759

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George Holt,*District Attorney, and *Sherman H. Simmons,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*George D. Frame,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents Mark Valdez and Alfred Olea Enriquez.

*9
      *Douglas G. Crosby,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent Donald Elmer Shapiro.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

We find no error in the district court’s determination that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to hold appellants for trial. NRS 171.206; State v. Luchetti, 87 Nev. 343, 486 P.2d 1189 (1971).

The district court’s order granting habeas corpus is affirmed.
#### CLEMENT LEE WOODS, Administrator of the Estate of RANDY LEE WOODS v. JAMES ENTERPRISES, INC., JAMES FARMS, INC. and HOWARD STAMEY

No. 7222SC20

(Filed 23 February 1972)

Appeal and Error § 6— interlocutory order — striking of portions of complaint

Order allowing defendants’ motions to strike portions of the complaint is not appealable. Court of Appeals Rule 4.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Crissman, Judge,*21 June 1971 Session, Iredell Superior Court.

*Franklin Smith for plaintiff appellant.*

*Collier, Harris & Homesley and Craighill, Rendleman & Clarkson by J. B. Craighill for defendant appellees.*

BRITT, Judge.

Plaintiff attempts to appeal from an order allowing defendants’ motions to strike certain portions of plaintiff’s complaint. The order is not appealable. Rule 4, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Plaintiff has also petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari as provided by Rule 4 to review said order but we do not agree with plaintiff’s contention that he will suffer substantial harm from the ruling on the motion unless the ruling is reviewed by this court prior to the trial of the cause on its merits. The petition is denied.

Appeal dismissed.

Petition for certiorari denied.

Judges Campbell and Graham concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         353,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,337,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,231,458
<PP&E>                                       1,265,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,854,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,091,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       218,583
<OTHER-SE>                                     312,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,854,457
<SALES>                                     10,800,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,800,686
<CGS>                                        8,305,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,874,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,494)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             540,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                388,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            388,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   361,857
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001068105
<NAME> WESTFORD ACQUISITION CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             416
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   416
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5000000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       416
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.0
        

</TABLE>
#### GARY GENE SONDERGAARD, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7747

February 7, 1975

531 P.2d 474

*94
      *Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Roy A. Woof ter,*District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The sole- issue presented by this appeal is whether Gary Gene Sondergaard has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The district court denied his pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on that premise. The chronology of this case is footnoted below.1

*95The main thrust of the appellant’s contention is that the State was compelled by statute to bring him to trial within 60 days after the Sheriff of Clark County was notified of the findings of the Sanity Commission that he was competent to stand trial. NRS 178.460. The State made no effort to do so, and has acknowledged its inadvertence in this regard.

Without question, the statute was violated. That violation, by itself, is not necessarily to be equated with a denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. It is a factor, of course, to be considered in applying the' balancing approach of the United States Supreme Court announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). Four factors were there identified and’ are to be assessed in deciding whether a defendant has been denied his constitutional right. Those factors are the length of the delay, the reason for it, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.

In the case at hand, the defendant did not demand trial, nor does he claim prejudice. The length of the delay is not inordinate, particularly in the light of his fluctuating mental condition, and his motion for a second sanity examination. Although the inability of the prosecution to give any. reason for its failure to bring the defendant to trial within 60' days after August 27, 1973, is exceedingly disturbing, we do not consider this fault alone to overbalance the other considerations to which we have alluded. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying habeas relief.

a.. January 23, 1973.Criminal complaint filed charging murder.

b. January 24, 1973.Preliminary examination waived.

c. February 8, 1973.Information filed.

d. May 23, 1973....After a sanity hearing, accused found mentally incompetent and committed to Nevada State Hospital.

e. August 27, 1973.Sanity Commission found accused competent, and district court ordered him returned to Clark County to stand trial. . '

*95f. January 22, 1974.Petition for habeas corpus filed asserting denial of right to a speedy trial.

g. Sometime after January 22, 1974, accused moved for a psychiatric examination. The court heard expert medical testimony on February 6 and February 21.

h. February 26, 1974.Petition for habeas corpus denied, the court rioting, among other things, that the accused was unable to assist his counsel to defend the case.

i. March 11, 1974.Formal order entered finding accused incompetent and again committing him to the custody of the Superintendent of the Nevada State Hospital.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4052

JUVENILE MALE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.

(CR-02-388-CMC)

Submitted: May 29, 2003

Decided: June 12, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Juvenile Male pled guilty to committing an act of juvenile delinquency, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 5031 (2000). The district court

committed him to official detention for thirty-six months imprisonment, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.A. § 5037 (West 2000 & Supp.

2003). Juvenile Male appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel asserts that

in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. However, he

raises the issues of whether the district court complied with Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 in accepting the guilty plea, and whether the disposition

was in violation of the law or an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Juvenile Male, informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, has not done so. 

After reviewing the transcript of the plea proceeding, we conclude

that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11

in accepting the guilty plea. As to sentencing, the Sentencing Guidelines are not necessarily applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.12 (2001). The

district court carefully followed the statutory directives in arriving at

a disposition in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 5037. Therefore, we find counsel’s claims to be without merit. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the

district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served

on the client. 

We affirm the district court’s finding of juvenile delinquency and

the resulting disposition. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. JUVENILE MALE
EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8)  pertaining  to the 1998 Incentive and Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, 1992
Stock  Option  Plan  and  1998  Employee  Stock  Option Purchase Plan of Implant
Sciences  of  our report dated September 7, 2001 (except for the fifth paragraph
of  Note  8,  as  to  which  the  date is October 12, 2001), with respect to the
financial  statements  of  Implant  Sciences  Corporation included in the Annual
Report  (Form  10-KSB) for the year ended June 30, 2001, as amended, included in
this  Form  10-KSB/A No.3.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Boston, Massachusetts
April 29, 2002


<PAGE>