alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 36-2 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 20 of 20
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7351

WAYNE V. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 99-7352

WAYNE V. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-99-1130-AW, CA-99-535-AW)

Submitted: January 20, 2000 Decided: February 9, 2000
2

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne V. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney

General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

August 27, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on September 2, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

Wayne V. Williams appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaints. 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. See Williams v. Conroy, Nos. CA-99-1130-AW;

CA-99-535-AW (D. Md. Sept. 2, 1999).* Williams’s motions to amend

the record, to provide a copy of the record, to appoint counsel, to

authorize transcripts at government expense, to provide a copy of

the Clerk’s civil docket, to seek discovery, and to amend his

informal brief are denied. 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-03495-SHS Document 10 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BILLUPS

No. 97PC

Case below: 49 NC App 373

Application by defendant for further review denied 5 May 1981.
Case 7:07-cv-03304-KMK-LMS Document 3 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2021 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2021

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking marijuana use, 
possession, and distribution as grounds of inadmissibility and removal.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2019

  Mr. Booker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking marijuana use, 
possession, and distribution as grounds of inadmissibility and removal.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Removing Marijuana from Deportable 
Offenses Act''.

SEC. 2. STRIKING MARIJUANA USE, POSSESSION, AND DISTRIBUTION AS GROUNDS 
              FOR INADMISSIBILITY AND REMOVAL.

    (a) In General.--The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 
et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 101(a)(43)(B) (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B)), by 
        inserting ``other than the distribution of marijuana,'' after 
        ``(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances 
        Act)'';
            (2) in section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)), by amending 
        subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
                    ``(F) Marijuana offenses.--Notwithstanding any 
                other provision of this section, any offenses involving 
                the use, possession, or distribution of marijuana shall 
                not be considered as grounds of inadmissibility.''; and
            (3) in section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)), 
        by striking ``other than a single offense involving possession 
        for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana'' and 
        inserting ``other than offenses involving the use, possession, 
        or distribution of marijuana''.
    (b) Right To Reapply or Return.--
            (1) Reapplication.--Any alien who was previously denied a 
        visa to enter the United States as a direct result of the 
        alien's use, possession, or distribution of marijuana may 
        reapply for admission to the United States.
            (2) Reissuance.--Any alien who was deported from the United 
        States as a direct result of the alien's use, possession, or 
        distribution of marijuana shall be readmitted to the United 
        States and reissued the visa that they had at the time of the 
        alien's deportation if the alien is not inadmissible under 
        section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
        amended by subsection (a)(2).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 70911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23125]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Wisconsin District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Wisconsin District Advisory 
Council will be hosting a public meeting to discuss such matters that 
may be presented by members, and staff of the U.S. Small Business 
Administration, or others present. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, 
December 13, 2005 starting at 1:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at the 
U.S. Small Business Administration, Wisconsin-Milwaukee District 
Office, 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 400, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
    Anyone wishing to attend must contact Cindy Merrigan in writing or 
by fax. Cindy Merrigan, Computer Specialist, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 740 Regent Street, Suite 100, Madison, Wisconsin 53715, 
phone (608) 441-5560, fax (202) 481-0815, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89eae0e7edf0a7e4ecfbfbe0eee8e7c9faebe8a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e88b81868c91c6858d9a9a818f8986a89b8a89c68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-23125 Filed 11-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ROBERT HOLLAND

No. 48 PC

(Filed 12 December 1980)

Order

Defendant James Robert Holland’s petition for discretionary-review of the decision of the Court of Appeals (No. 7916SC1182, 48 N.C. App. 226, 275 S.E. 2d 572 (1980)) is allowed. On the authority of *State v. Small,*301 N.C. 407, 272 S.E. 2d 128 (1980), defendant’s conviction and sentence for felonious possession of cocaine in Robeson County Case No. 78-CR-15550 is vacated and set aside; and the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it found no error in this case is reversed. The decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in Robeson County Case No. 78-CR-15549, the conspiracy conviction, is affirmed.

By order of the Court in Conference this 2nd day of December, 1980.

Britt, J.

For the Court

The foregoing order is issued over my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court this 12 day of December, 1980.

John R. Morgan

Clerk of the Supreme Court of North Carolina
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-16 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 24 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-03429-DCF Document 2 Filed 05/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
✎AO 85 (Rev. 8/98) Notice, Consent, and Order of Reference — Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND ORDER OF REFERENCE —

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

Plaintiff MAGISTRATE JUDGE

V.

Case Number:

Defendant

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, you are notified that a United States

magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,

and to order the entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however, permitted only if all

parties voluntarily consent.

You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court’s jurisdiction

from being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding

consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned.

An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for

this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court.

CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United

States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including the trial, order the entry of a final judgment, and

conduct all post-judgment proceedings.

Party Represented Signatures Date

ORDER OF REFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred to

United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Date United States District Judge

NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED 

ON THIS FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Case 7:07-cv-03457-KMK Document 4-2 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### EARLE v. WYRICK

No. 67.

Reported: 286 N.C. 175.

Petition by defendant to rehear denied 5 February 1975.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6047

JAMES EDWARD PRINCE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, JR., Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1464-H) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 22, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Prince, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Prince v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-1464-H (D. Md. Dec. 17, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,762,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  704,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,925,425
<PP&E>                                       3,913,775
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,021,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,607,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,932,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,203
<COMMON>                                        10,111
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,662,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,607,386
<SALES>                                      1,641,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,641,895
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,666,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,467,143)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,628
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,468,771)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,815,211)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.95)


</TABLE>
#### H. C. FINGAL ET AL., APPELLANT, v. MILLVALE BORO.

Appeal No. 44, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, taxpayers, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 636, refusing preliminary injunction. Argued with preceding case.

Bill for injunction.

The bill contained averments substantially as in the complaint in the preceding case. The court refused to order a preliminary injunction.

*Error assigned*was order, quoting it.

July 11, 1894:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Green,

For the reasons stated in the opinion now filed in the case of the Appeal of Howard et al., No. 41, Oct. Term, 1894, the decree of the court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATIONS
 
 
 The certifications set forth below are being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) 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.
 
 Fanrong Li, the Chief Executive Officer and Hua Zhong, the Chief Financial Officer of CNOOC Limited, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
 
 1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 
 2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CNOOC Limited.
 
 
 Date: April 22, 2015
 
  By:
/S/Fanrong LiName:
Fanrong LiTitle:
Chief Executive Officer and President
   By:
/S/Hua ZhongName:
Hua ZhongTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             30 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,517 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                     2,988 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,378       
<PP&E>                                         26,476      
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,999    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,544      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11,548    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                        6,550 
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,500       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   29,544         
<SALES>                                        17,662          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,662         
<CGS>                                          13,524          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,166          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 52       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   931       
<INCOME-TAX>                                      372      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               559      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                      559 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.24 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.24 
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-% 

In re Fosamax Froducts Liability : 

Lit lgdt ion 

- - - - - - - - . .. - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

This Gocutnent Re2ates to: 

All Actions. ----.----------------------------- -X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District 3udge: 

After considering the letters subinltted 

the !:our-t w:ll r,ot enter M~rck's propc~ed order regarding rases 

filed by BeatFe and Osbdrrt, LLP that involve less t!~an three 

zcntinuous years of Fosamax use. Whether fir not Fcsa~nax call cause 

ONJ in anyone before three years of use remains an open quest-ion 

that should be resolved uniformly on the basla of the scientific 

evidence generated a£ ter a f gll opporturli tls for dir;covery. 

Thc parties are directed tc7 agree upsn and submit to the 

Court by October 7, 20ila a case managemuilt order Froposlng: (1) a 

sckdule to con~plete all generic expert discovery In this MDL; and 

(2) a schedule for summary judqn-tent mot-ions. In the event that the 

parties cannot reach agreement, by the same date each shall submit 

~ts own PI-oposal dlcng with a letter brief In support of it, and 

appear for a conference in ~ourtrooni 20C on Octobei- 16, 2005 at 

1G:30 am. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 9, 2008 

I 

1 

JOHN F. KEENAN 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03459-JFK Document 37 Filed 09/09/2008 Page 1 of 1
5TAT£ 0 FT£XA^> IM 1 u£ 6 oort

^ OF ^K\niMAL

To TrtE HOMoaAG>u£ 6odfVT OF 6RWIMAI. APPEALS

Abe! Acosta, Clerk

^HjUci £<iU5e, ^"0 te£pe*4"full$ pr^iirM Vs,6 Motion -vo 6o&j>««i Role

^3£bb o^ fV>c Te-*a5 Rl>W c* Appe\W PrcsLeclurc ai\<J \B\Mk>$MiC\ W'.U 6W> +W ftWouliruy COURT OF CRiM^AL APPEALS _ . OCT 2 3 2315

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Appellant \5 appealli^ his towi^fron \Vo<*\ -Hnd 11 ObtffcV

^-<7ur+, (Ad\enoaf\ £ou/\fc^,7e*rtS, 6ai>5e Alo. ^0O-H6~6\, His rj*»red" ctppfezA wos die/iled ku tW ^.cwrt- o£ Appeals in Wado, Texas ,

COUrTl OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OCT 19 2015

A<ppel\aAJr <W-3 not Ka\/£ detect Ha 6c7po> rv*^V>d \Q

make 6op*»<r2 an^ »> \nh\acrft an&, Wiere&xc, DAa&le io WzU£ o_n<^

/Aftk \©c h'i/^.

WHEkE^O^ti A^elW ow^6 VWH Wrti V>o*ocable £ocM

araM 4-V\'^ pne^rori -Vo 5u5f-eA<i Ri>\£ ^^>6V>> oa^ app-eUaA^ to 5ob

Tse5p^6-f¥Uil^,
#### STATE v. LIDDELL

No. 26 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 373.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 April 1979.