alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. MARTIN

No. 108 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 616.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Caroina Court of Appeals denied 3 February 1970.
#### THE BETZ MARKET, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE H. HILLMAN, Jr., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October term, 1931

Decided December 10, 1931.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

For the appellant, *Jacob Vm Der Clock*and *Samuel Bosenfeld.*

For the appellee, *Blmer Friedbauer.*

Per Curiam.

The action was to recover for provisions. The account was opened by the wife of the defendant below in 1928 and was continued until May 6th, 1930, when the defendant notified the plaintiff not to extend any further credit on his account. The goods were delivered from time to time to defendant’s home and payments were made, on account, until on May 6th, 1930, there remained an unpaid balance of $177.18.

The judge of the District Court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of the plaintiff below and from the resulting judgment the defendant below appeals.

Three grounds for reversal are urged.

1. That the court erred in permitting the offer in evidence of delivery slips.

From the state of case settled by the trial judge it appears—

“Plaintiff then testified that these delivery slips were his only records and the original records and that he kept no *11books, whereupon the court received, the slips in evidence sH * H5 >!< w

Under such circumstances we think they were properly admitted.

*2.*Error in refusal to nonsuit.

This motion was made upon the ground that there was no proof that the provisions were “necessaries.”

We are unable to understand how there can be any doubt that provisions used for food are not within the class of “necessaries” which the husband as the head of the family is legally required to provide and pay for.

3. The judgment is contrary to the weight of the evidence. This is not a proper ground of appeal.

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
Case 7:07-cv-03249-CLB Document 2 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 14, 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, August 14, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0001. DWIGHT DAVID MASSEY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

CR071423
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form the Jaclyn,
Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,352
<SECURITIES>                                     1,674
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,771
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42
<INVENTORY>                                      5,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,509
<PP&E>                                           1,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,369
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,111
<SALES>                                         33,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,043
<CGS>                                           25,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    296
<INCOME-TAX>                                       107
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                189
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       189
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6980

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITH BERNARD JOHNSON, a/k/a Bonji Denard

Crane, a/k/a Bonji DeNard Crane,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-29-P, CR-93-268-P)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Bernard Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for appointment of a new supervising probation officer. 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. United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-93-29-P; CR-93-

268-P (W.D.N.C. May 31, 1996). 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
Case 1:07-cv-03329-HB Document 11 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03329-HB Document 11 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007171EN.01000401.xml

| 24.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4767 — Montagu/Unifeeder)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 171/04)

On 18 July 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4767. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4767. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### Brenda C. MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3110.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 15, 2005.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 126 FedAppx. 961.

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Case 1:07-cv-03314-GBD     Document 30      Filed 02/13/2008     Page 1 of 1
Carla A. Kerr (CK-5194) 

Afiya M. Jordan (AJ-2108) 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004 

Phone (212) 837-6000 

Fax (212) 422-4726 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs A.C. and H.C. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

A.C. and H.C. by their Next Friend BARBARA 

WEINER, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

-againstJOHN MATTINGLY, in his official capacity as 

Commissioner of the New York City 

Administration for Children’s Services; and JOHN 

JOHNSON, in his official capacity as 

Commissioner of the New York State Office of 

Children and Family Services, 

Defendants. 

05 Civ. 2986 (TPG) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 19 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP hereby 

appears as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs A.C. and H.C. in the above-entitled action. All 

pleadings, notices, orders, correspondence, and other papers in connection with the action shall 

be served upon: 

Carla A. Kerr 

Afiya M. Jordan 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004 

Phone (212) 837-6000 

Fax (212) 422-4726 

kerr@hugheshubbard.com 

jordan@hugheshubbard.com 

Dated: June 12, 2006 

New York, New York 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

By: /s/ Carla A. Kerr

Carla A. Kerr (CK-5194) 

Afiya M. Jordan (AJ-2108) 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004 

(212) 837-6000 

Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 19 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date, I caused copies of the attached Notice of 

Appearance of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP to be filed electronically and served by mail on: 

All Counsel on attached service list 

Dated June 12, 2006 

/s/ Afiya M. Jordan 

Afiya M. Jordan (AJ-2108) 

Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 19 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Eonorable 1. D. Ratlfff, Tr. 

County Attorney 

m&4Iuyt, 

, 

Dear Sir: 

Tour requ48t ror 

captioned matter ha6 b44n 

quote rror four lett4r a4 

the h4nl@oYo 

II drprtm4nt. W4 

I.410 866 or the 

-publio amuarment om Sunday, 

nc4t 1484 than twenty'nor, 

*article 207 of the pdnal Code in gart proYM481 

“‘The prekdlng Artiole shall not apply-- 

to motion plotUre shows, or theatree opelrated 
Eonorab1.r L. D. SWUfi, foe, Y&@o 8 

ia;~4~;ymf& sit7 br town, after 

% . w84a. es lko Oaeir8iour8 or City Cowsail or the tmm8 or olti48 lnwhbh ~14 

motiOn pioture *how8 sr,tbaatre8 am 10~ 

oated rhull have t&a rigat ud porrr by 

proprr ordiwadr to prohibit or regul4ta 

tiho keep14 opoa or ahowlns oi maoh mo, 

tioa piobpro 8bowa or t&)rtra on Stmdy.~ 

"Q tn$$pQlf8 

l ( l) x8 s00tia m or a ti 889 0r the p 4 tma 

Co de l b6vo quotrd C4nrtftutiorull 

-(a) x6 60aqi08 a or mi010 se7 0r th0 

Ponal Oodo abow q uo ted l raps& and valid dalegaaioa or power by thr Is s rlatura? 

“(8) Un4.r &06Oion 8 or Art1aaa 887 or 

tha Jkaal Odle abet. uwted dou e City Inn 

th4 power to’ &mDhiblt mhe operation Or a PDtfoa pisturs 8hw artier oae 0~0Iook P. 11. on 

8ua&ay? * 

T&e quot44 pett1on or &?A410 me 4nQ ,3hO iirrt &mmgE@ QUDtclb fter Ucti410 &81, both r- th0 h~61 Hobo, Qa& 

it a rtatutor~ Of30560 to 0*~0t0 motion protare 8h0wm 01~ tlwatar* on sun4ay bartar* lrO0 par. Aftor tbat boux. th4 @tat. 

law Qo4B8 not prohibit *how* anA theater8 rrtm opclratQn&. 

Under seati4a a of Artiolr ~381 quoted ruprs, the 

2*$i*lattara dologated to the anaioi 

r 

da* the right -4 

powor by proper ordlna&Oa to probib t or rWUlat0 thm IMopLw og(lr gr rhoriryg oi 8uoh 8bows or theaters after UQO par 

oa c4unQay. 

me aaaotiient of Sunday laws 18 held to be a grosnr 

exercise or tb4 pouoo 'peer or the Statoc The p4lzl04 ~parrs 

or th4 stat0 map b4 QelegatoQ ror a proprlats purpo*u to tb0 

rarlou*larnfoipalitieC~ 9 Texas sur lp 8pru~mloe %cmMmt lkprtr 

Bower, (Grim. App.) 168 8. Yf. t$6@. 
a
#### STATE v. JUNIOR VANN COLEMAN.

(Filed 14 January, 1966.)

Criminal Law § 23—

Where the evidence supports the court’s findings that defendant, on trial for murder in the first degree, freely and understandingly entered a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree, the acceptance of the plea by the court will not be disturbed.

*356Appeal by defendant, Junior Vann Coleman, from *Mallard, J.,*April, 1965 Criminal Session, RobesoN Superior Court.

The defendant was indicted at the January, 1965 Session for the first degree murder of Coleman B. Hodge. Upon a showing of the defendant’s indigency, the court appointed Mr. F. D. Hackett, attorney, to represent him.

The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. After the trial had proceeded for nearly three days, during which the State had introduced evidence the deceased had died as a result of at least four stab wounds penetrating the lung cavity, and other evidence connecting the defendant with the infliction of the wounds, the defendant and his counsel, in the absence of the jury, requested and obtained permission of the court to tender to the State a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree. The court gave the permission only after detailed explanation of the elements of murder in the second degree and the possible punishment. The defendant stated under oath that he freely and understandingly entered the plea. Thereupon the plea was accepted by the State. The court imposed a prison sentence of 25 years in the State’s prison. After sentence the defendant first stated he wanted to appeal, later attempted to withdraw the request, but finally decided to prosecute the appeal. The court ordered Mr. Hackett and Mr. J. F. Britt to make the appeal entries, prepare the record and perfect the appeal.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, George A. Goodwyn, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Joe Freeman Britt, Robert Weinstein, and F. D. Hackett by Joe Freeman Britt for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried for his life. During the third day of the trial and before the State had completed its evidence, the defendant and his counsel tendered to the State a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree. After lengthy investigation, “(T)he Court ascertains, determines and adjudges that the plea of Guilty by the defendant of the felony of Murder in the Second Degree is freely, understandingly and voluntarily made and was made without any undue influence, compulsion or duress and without promise of leniency, It Is ThereupoN Ordered that his plea of Guilty be entered on the minutes.”

After a full review and examination of the record and the carefully prepared briefs filed both by the defendant and by the State, we conclude that the defendant’s constitutional rights were afforded him at all stages of the trial.

No error.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.05 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### STATE v. WATSON and CAPERS

No. 74.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 160.

Petition by defendant Capers for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 October 1973. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 October 1973.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,207
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,207)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (19,113)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,113)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6824

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHIRLEY INGRAM, a/k/a Raheem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:10-cr-00069-FDW-1)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shirley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shirley Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

directing him to file a response within 30 days indicating 

whether he agrees to the recharacterization of his Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 37 motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Ingram seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 6 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 6 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 2