alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

JARVIS PARSONS 300 EAST 26 TH STREET District Attorney SUITE 310

BRYAN, TEXAS 77803

979/361-4320 FAX: 979/361-4368 BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

August 26, 2015

Honorable Abel Acosta Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711

RE: Adam Brooks v. State CCA no. PD -1 095 -15 COA No. 10 -13- 00 409- CR

Dear Mr

. Acosta:

Please be advised that the District Attorney’s Office is not a party to the appeal in the above case

. Instead, the State is represented by the County Attorney’s Offic e.

Please send all future correspondence to the Hon. Rod Anderson, County Attorney’s Office, 300 East 26th Street, Suite 1300, Bryan, TX 77803.

Sincerely,

/s/ Douglas Howell, III

Douglas Howell, III Assistant District Attorney dhowell@brazoscountytx.gov PD-1095-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/26/2015 2:31:17 PM Accepted 8/27/2015 5:34:19 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 7080

DREW C. HARTLEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; SHERIFF OF ONSLOW COUNTY , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:23

- hc

- 02113

- D )

Submitted : February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Drew C. Hartley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Drew C. Hartley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). When the district court denies relief on t he merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constituti onal right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012 ) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hartley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny all of Hartley’s pending motions. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### MASSEY-FERGUSON CORP. v. WOOLARD

No. 148 PC

Case below: 49 NC App 374

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1981.
# C_2011323EN.01000401.xml

| 8.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/4

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2011/C 323/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.10.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.32849 (11/N) |
| Member State | United Kingdom |
| Region | Scotland | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Forestry Grant Schemes in Scotland |
| Legal basis | Scottish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Forestry |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Overall budget: GBP 60 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.10.2011

Reference number of State Aid

SA.32849 (11/N)

Member State

United Kingdom

Region

Scotland

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Forestry Grant Schemes in Scotland

Legal basis

Scottish Rural Development Programme 2007-2013

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Forestry

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: GBP 60 million

| | Annual budget: GBP 20 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: GBP 20 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2013

Economic sectors

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

| Forestry Commission Scotland |
| --- |
| Silvan House |
| 231 Corstorphine Road |
| Edinburgh |
| EH12 7AT |
| UNITED KINGDOM |

Forestry Commission Scotland

Silvan House

231 Corstorphine Road

Edinburgh

EH12 7AT

UNITED KINGDOM

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK

ROBERT H JERRY, II, LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s request, Doc. 122, for leave to file a reply to

Defendants’ motion, Doc. 121, in opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Strike, Doc.

107. Plaintiff would like to correct alleged deficiencies in Defendants’ factual and legal

assertions. Plaintiff requests until close of business Monday, August 9, 2010 to file her reply, so

as to afford the opposing party enough time to review the reply before the hearing. Motion for

Leave to File a Reply, Doc. 122, is GRANTED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -AK Document 125 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THEODORE HENRY FRANKUM.

(Filed 13 December, 1967.)

Criminal Daw § 167—

Any technical error in putting into effect a suspended sentence *held*not prejudicial to the defendant in this case when the sentence is to run concurrently with another sentence of imprisonment imposed upon defendant the same day, it being to defendant’s advantage to be freed of the sentence of suspension in this manner.

Appeal by defendant from *McLean, J.,*24 July 1967 Criminal Session, GastoN County Superior Court.

The defendant was convicted in the Domestic Relations Court of Gaston County of the willful abandonment and non-support of his wife and two minor children. The Court continued prayer for judgment upon conditions, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. There, on 21 November 1966, he entered a plea of *256guilty to the charge; and the Court imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment, suspended on condition, among others, that he pay $20.00 per month for the support of his minor children, and that he pay the costs within three months. In July 1967, Judge McLean found that the defendant had failed to comply with the above conditions and ordered that commitment issue to place the prison sentence into effect. On the same date, Judge McLean had imposed upon the defendant a sentence of eighteen months for assault with a deadly weapon *(State v. Frankum, ante,*p. 253), with the provision that it was to run concurrently with the sentence pronounced in this case. The defendant appealed in both cases.

*Donald B. Bamseur, Attorney for defendant appellant.*

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, and T. Buie Costen, Staff Attorney, for the State.*

PER Cueiam:

The defendant contends that the technical requirements for placing a suspended prison sentence into effect were not observed in this case. Even if his claim were substantiated, it is apparent that no substantial disadvantage to him has resulted.

Since he must serve an eighteen months’ sentence in the assault case referred to above, it will be to his benefit to be freed of the suspended sentence in this case by serving it concurrently with the other sentence.

This, of course, does not relieve the defendant of the responsibility of supporting his minor children, and he is still subject to prosecution for any future, and wilful, failure to do so.

No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       192,959,373
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   3,191,984
<MORTGAGE>                                  14,987,494
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             219,918,779
<CASH>                                       4,387,733
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             438,740
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      28,425,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             289,338,174
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            210,683,643
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         20,813,100
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,925,777
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,842,609
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       848,409
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,384,370
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               289,338,174
<PREMIUMS>                                  10,163,111
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          3,670,850
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              17,111
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 204,235
<BENEFITS>                                   5,295,392
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  (624,681)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         8,370,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,013,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                   320,392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            693,399
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                183,920
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   509,479
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
          THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX  MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
          1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
          STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,829,069
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,124,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                       505,875
<INVENTORY>                                      3,235,315
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,730,926
<PP&E>                                           2,830,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,213,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,512,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,553,705
<BONDS>                                          4,333,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        924,526
<COMMON>                                           256,490
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,667,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,512,952
<SALES>                                          5,312,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,312,344
<CGS>                                            2,844,438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,367,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 477,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (532,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        74,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (607,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (607,646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.03)
        


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





<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                        24,488
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 365,187
<ALLOWANCES>                  13,391
<INVENTORY>                   306,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              729,868
<PP&E>                        1,104,665
<DEPRECIATION>                563,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,478,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         468,392
<BONDS>                       263,980
<COMMON>                      139,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    438,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,478,693
<SALES>                       1,630,343
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,630,343
<CGS>                         1,210,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,210,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            20,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>               136,645
<INCOME-TAX>                  43,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           92,945
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  92,945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 3.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                 3.28
        




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 U.S.C SECTION 1350
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
        13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

   (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
        all material respects, the financial condition and result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                     President and Chief Executive Officer
                             October 8, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEVIN WILLIAMS, §

§ No. 390, 2018

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1204002559(N)

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 6, 2019

Decided: February 11, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.

O R D E R

This 11th day of February, 2019, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

briefs and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court that the judgment of the 

Superior Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its 

June 29, 2018 Memorandum Opinion. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court be AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 50 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 50 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
# Columbus Day, 2007

In 1492, Christopher Columbus set sail on a journey that changed the course of history. On Columbus Day, we celebrate this voyage of discovery and honor an Italian explorer who shaped the destiny of the New World. 

Christopher Columbus' bold journey across the Atlantic opened new frontiers of exploration and demonstrated the power of perseverance. His journeys inspired other risk-takers and dreamers to test the bounds of their imagination and gave them the courage to accomplish great feats, whether crossing the world's oceans or walking on the moon. Today, a new generation of innovators and pioneers continues to uphold the finest values of our country—discipline, ingenuity, and unity in the pursuit of great goals. 

As we look back on the contributions of the great explorer from Genoa, we also celebrate the many contributions that generations of Italian Americans have made to our Nation. Their service to America and ties to family, faith, and community have strengthened our country and enriched our culture. 

In commemoration of Columbus' journey, the Congress, by joint resolution of April 30, 1934, and modified in 1968 (36 U.S.C. 107), as amended, has requested that the President proclaim the second Monday of October of each year as “Columbus Day.” 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 8, 2007, as Columbus Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I also direct that the flag of the United States be displayed on all public buildings on the appointed day in honor of Christopher Columbus. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-5007

Billing code 3195-01-P
# C_2011199EN.01001302.xml

| 7.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/13

---

Corrigendum to Commission opinion concerning a notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof originating in India

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 142 of 13 May 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 142 of 13 May 2011

2011/C 199/09

As regards the title of the act,

for:

read:

---
#### Joseph Forbes, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas J. Owens, defendant in error.

(By two judges.) — The District Court was not, by the Act of October 28, 1870, clothed with jurisdiction to try and give judgment upon debts and contracts not exceeding $100. 12th March, 1872.

Jurisdiction of District Courts. Before Judge Strozier. Dooly Superior Court. September Term, 1871.

Forbes sued Owens, upon an open account, for $93, before the Judge of the District Court, and Owens obtained a judg*133ment for costs, upon a trial upon the merits. Forbes sued out *certiorari*to correct various alleged errors committed by said district Judges. Judge Strozier refused to sanction the writ, because the District Court had no jurisdiction over the cause of action. That is assigned as error.

J. L. Toole; S. Rogers, for plaintiff in error.

Poe, Hall *&*Poe; S. R. Goode, for defendant.

The District Court had not jurisdiction over the cause: Const., Art. V., sec. 4, p. 6; Act 1870, sec. 6, pamph. 33. Nothing is here taken by intendment: 13 Ga. R., 7; 8 How. R., 441, 495. The 17th section of Act of 1870 gives district Judge powers distinct from District Court: Sedgwick on Stat., 422, 423; Dwarris on Stat., 656; 4 Coke, 46 (a); 10 Ga. R., 429.

McCay, Judge.

We have looked carefully into the Act of October 28th, 1870, to find any clause from which to derive the jurisdiction of the District Court over a claim of the character described in this record.

It is true that section 12 of the Act provides that all civil cases, at the monthly sessions, shall be tried by the Judge, without the intervention of a jury, but this confers no jurisdiction. It only provides how the jurisdiction it has shall be exercised. Section 6 authorizes the Judge, at the monthly sessions, to hear applications for eviction of trespassers, intruders and tenants holding over, writs for partition of personal property, possessory-warrants and distress-warrants, and *habeas corpus*cases. These are civil cases, and supply a jurisdiction for section 12 to operate upon.

Section 17 adds additional jurisdiction to hear and deter-tine bail process, (what this may mean is doubtful; perhaps to fix bail in a trover case, or in an action for damages,) issue attachments, evidently returnable to some other Court, since he is not authorized to try attachments and issue warrants for *134the enforcement of liens, but, still, not to try *them;*but this is all. We think, therefore, Judge Strozier was right, and affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
#### INSURANCE CO. v. INGRAM, COMR. OF INSURANCE

No. 15

Reported: 301 NC 138

Petition by plaintiff to rehear denied 6 January 1981