alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

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

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



/s/ Nimrod T. Frazer
------------------------------------
Nimrod T. Frazer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2251 

To permanently extend the exemption for the aging process of distilled spirits 

from the production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2019 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To permanently extend the exemption for the aging process 

of distilled spirits from the production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Growth in 

5 the Economy through Distilled Spirits Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘AGED Spirits Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PRODUCTION PERIOD OF DISTILLED SPIRITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

9 263A(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2251 IS

1 ‘‘(B) TERMINATION.—Clauses (i) and (ii) 

2 of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to interest 

3 costs paid or accrued after December 31, 

4 2019.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this section shall apply to interest costs paid or accrued 

7 after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00691-CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 6, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 23, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s failure to grant him a continuance with regard to the hearing on

relator’s pro se motion to recuse Judge Ron Rangel. The court has considered relator’s petition and

is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-6566, styled State of Texas v. Jason Miears, pending in the 379th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding. However, the ruling relator

complains of was made by Judge Dick Alcala, who was assigned to hear relator’s pro se motion to recuse Judge Rangel.
EXHIBIT 32.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.    /s/ Richard R. Walters DATE:  August 17, 2007 Richard R. Walters, President   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.                        1
**EXHIBIT10.2**

 

MODIFICATION OFLOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT

 

 

WHEREAS this agreement isin reference to a loan which is evidenced by an instrument entitled LOAN ANDSECURITY AGREEMENT (“AGREEMENT”), dated February 20, 2001, executed by andbetween LEE PHARMACEUTICALS as “BORROWER” AND PREFERRED BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.(“PBC”), as “LENDER.”

 

NOW THEREFORE, it isagreed by the undersigned parties that the AGREEMENT shall be amended in thefollowing respect:

 

In Section 2.8 of theAgreement, . This Agreement shall become effective upon acceptance by PBC andshall continue in full force and effect for a term ending one year from thedate of this Agreement (the “Renewal Date”) and shall be automatically renewedfor successive one (1) year periods thereafter, unless sooner terminatedpursuant to terms hereof.  Either partymay terminate this Agreement on the Renewal Date or on any anniversary of theRenewal date by giving the other party at least ninety (90) days prior writtennotice by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, PBC shallhave the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and without notice uponthe occurrence of an Event of Default.

 

Except as noted above,all the terms, conditions and provisions of said AGREEMENT shall remainunchanged and in full force and effect.

 
| DATE:  May 20, 2004         |
|----------------------------------|
|                             |   |   |   |
| PREFERRED BUSINESS  CREDIT, INC. | AGREED AND ACCEPTED: |   |
|                             |   |   |   |
|                             |   | LEE PHARMACEUTICALS |   |
|                             |   | a California  corporation |   |
|                             |   |   |   |
| BY:                              | FARHAD MOTIA |   |   |   |
|                             | Farhad Motia, President |   |   |
|                                  |  |  |  |  |

 

----

 
|   | By:    | RONALD G. LEE             |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Ronald G. Lee,  President |

 

----
#### MILLER v. SNIPES

No. 48 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 342.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 9 November 1971.
#### EVANS v. ROSE

No. 31 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 165.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 October 1971.
2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-20-2006 

# D o eble rs P A H y br id s v . D o eble r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3848

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D oeb le r s P

A H y br id s v . D oeb le r " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1177. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1177PR EC ED EN TI AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT
No. 04- 3848
DOEBLERS’ PENNSYLVANI A HYBRI DS, INC.
v. T A Y L O R

D O E B L E R , III, an in d iv idu al; D O E B L E R

S E E D S L L C d/b /a T .A . D o eb ler S eed s, De fe nd ant s / Th i r d- Party Pl a i nt i ff s
v. W I LLARD L. J ONES; WI LL IAM R . CAM ER ER , I II , T h ird -P arty

D ef en d an ts
Tayl or

Doe bl e r , I I I , an i ndi vi dua l , and D o eb ler S eed s L L C d/b /a T .A . D o eb ler S eed s,

A p p ellan ts
On Ap peal from

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt f o r th e M id d le D istrict o f

P en n sylv an ia ( D. C. No. 03- c v- 01079) Distri ct Judg e: Ho no ra

ble J am es F. McClure, Jr
.Judge Ri c har d L. Nyga ar d a s s um e d s e ni or s t at us on Jul y

9, 2005. * 2 Ar gue d June 30, 2005 B ef o re: N Y G A A R D , S M IT H , an dF IS H E R , Circ uit J ud ges . *
ORDER AMENDI NG OPI NI ON I T I S HEREBY ORDERED that the opi ni on i n the above c a s e , fi l e d Mar c h 23, 2 0 0 6 , b e am en d edas f

o llo w s: Pa ge s 51- 52, Part

V, the l a s t

s e nt e nc e , whi c h r e a d: Ac c or di ngl y , the or de r

of the Di s tr i c t

Court wi l l be r e ve r s e d, an dth e m atter w ill b e rem an d edf o r f u rth er p ro ceed in g s.
s ha l l r e a d: Accordingly , the order of the Distr ic t Cou rt will be re vers ed t o the e xt e nt

that i t gr ant e d s umm ary

judgm e nt

and a p erm an en t in

j u n ctio n in f

av o r o f D o eb lers’ P en n sylv an ia Hy brids, Inc. , andthe m atte r wil l be r em anded f or fu rther p ro ceed in g s.
B y th e C o u rt,
/s/ D . M ich a el F ish er Ci r c ui t Judge Dat e d: Apr i l 20, 2006
**EXHIBIT10.2**

 

 

**STRAIGHT NOTE**

 

 

 
| $100,000 |   | South El Monte,  California |   | May 15, 2002 |
|----------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------------|

 

 

 

                For valuereceived, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark DiSalvo or order, at SouthEl Monte, California the sum of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, with interest fromMay 15, 2002, on unpaid principal at the rate of twenty-four (24) per cent perannum; principal is payable monthly, commencing on June 25, 2002, with monthlyprincipal payments of $5,000.  Interestshall be calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, basedon a 365-day year, actual day month and payable monthly.  Principal and interest shall be payable inlawful money of the United States.  Ifaction were instituted on this note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court mayfix as attorney’s fees.  This note issecured by the trademarks on the product brands Unguentine®, andUnguentine® Plus.

 

 

 

 

 
| MAY 15, 2002 |   | RONALD G. LEE                            |   |
|--------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date         |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee      |
|         |   |                                     |
|         |   |                                     |
| MAY 15, 2002 |   | MICHAEL L. AGRESTI                       |   |
| Date         |   | Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti |
|              |        |                                          |        |  |

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2

















CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Ronald J. Kanterman, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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




















Date:  September
      24, 2008
            /s/ Ronald J. Kanterman
              Ronald
      J. Kanterman
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
#### WRENN v. WATERS

No. 132 PC.

Case below: 9 N.C. App. 39.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 28 August 1970.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:09-CV-357-SPM/GRJ

 

RANDALL HUGH SIMMONS,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on its own motion. The Plaintiff has failed

to comply with the Court’s Order (doc. 6), requiring Plaintiff to file a written showing of

good cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to

serve process. The Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause. 

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is

hereby dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Northern District

of Florida Local Rule 41.1(A).

DONE AND ORDERED this sixteenth day of June, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00357-SPM-GRJ Document 7 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDEEP SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71724

Agency No. A200-945-577

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71724 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review 

for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v. 

INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000). We review de novo due process 

contentions. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). 

We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s request for 

humanitarian asylum based on his past mistreatment in India. See Belayneh, 213 

F.3d at 491 (record lacked evidence of atrocious past persecution). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if he 

credibly established past persecution, the presumption of future persecution was 

rebutted by evidence that he could relocate within India and it would be reasonable 

for him to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B) (asylum); 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B) (withholding of removal); see also Gonzalez–Hernandez v. 

Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting “an individual who can 

relocate safely within his home country ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum”). 

We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA improperly allocated the burden of proof 

for internal relocation. Thus, we deny the petition as to Singh’s asylum and 
 3 14-71724 

withholding of removal claims. 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim

because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA ignored evidence, see 

Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006), or otherwise violated

his due process rights, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### FULLER v. SOUTHLAND CORP.

No. 375P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 1.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2176 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2176

 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for 
                      temporary protected status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2019

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for 
                      temporary protected status.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HAITI FOR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall designate Haiti for temporary protected status 
for a period of 18 months beginning on July 22, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DARRIN DENT, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Darren

Dent, a.k.a. Darrin Lanail Dent, a.k.a.

Darrin Lynell Dent, a.k.a. Darryl Dent,

a.k.a. Danny Madison Hill, a.k.a. Darren

Mejesse Hill, a.k.a. Darrin Hill, a.k.a. D.

Madison, a.k.a. Dennis Madison, a.k.a.

Anthony Madra, a.k.a. Keno Peoples,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50548

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00923-SJO

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Darrin Dent appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges two

FILED

MAY 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50548

conditions of supervised release imposed as part of his sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the legality of a sentence de novo, see United States

v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

Dent contends that two special conditions of supervised release included in

the written judgment must be modified or stricken because they were not included

in the oral pronouncement of sentencing. We disagree. The written judgment

controls because it did not add any substantive conditions to Dent’s sentence that

went beyond what Dent and his counsel could have anticipated from the court’s

statements at the sentencing hearing. See id. at 1043.

AFFIRMED.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 214 

To provide for the compensation of Federal and other government employees 

affected by the current lapse in appropriations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. GARDNER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To provide for the compensation of Federal and other government employees affected by the current lapse in appropriations. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL AND OTHER 

4 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY 

5 THE LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS. 

6 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

7 (1) the term ‘‘agency’’ means each establish8 ment in the Federal Government; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 214 IS

1 (2) the term ‘‘covered lapse in appropriations’’ 

2 means the lapse in appropriations that began on or 

3 about December 22, 2018; 

4 (3) the term ‘‘District of Columbia public em5 ployer’’ means— 

6 (A) the District of Columbia Courts; 

7 (B) the Public Defender Service for the 

8 District of Columbia; or 

9 (C) the District of Columbia government; 

10 and 

11 (4) the term ‘‘excepted employee’’ means an ex12 cepted employee or an employee performing emer13 gency work, as such terms are defined by the Office 

14 of Personnel Management or the appropriate Dis15 trict of Columbia public employer, as applicable. 

16 (b) PAY.—During the period of the covered lapse in 

17 appropriations, the head of each agency or District of Co18 lumbia public employer that is subject to the covered lapse 

19 in appropriations shall compensate, at the employee’s 

20 standard rate of compensation— 

21 (1) each employee of the agency or of a District 

22 of Columbia public employer who was furloughed as 

23 a result of the covered lapse in appropriations; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 214 IS

1 (2) each excepted employee who is required to 

2 perform work during the covered lapse in appropria3 tions. 

4 (c) FUNDING.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—There are appropriated for 

6 the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, out of 

7 any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro8 priated, to the head of each agency or District of 

9 Columbia public employer that is subject to the cov10 ered lapse in appropriations such sums as are nec11 essary to carry out this section. 

12 (2) CHARGING TO FULL-YEAR APPROPRIA13 TIONS.—Expenditures made pursuant to this Act 

14 shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 

15 fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 

16 applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is 

17 contained is enacted into law. 

18 (3) INTERACTION WITH OTHER LAW.—For pur19 poses of section 1341(c) of title 31, United States 

20 Code, the appropriations provided under paragraph 

21 (1) shall constitute an end of the covered lapse in 

22 appropriations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### GARRETT v. GARRETT & GARRETT FARMS

No. 201 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 210.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 March 1979.
#### CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. TICKLE

No. 65 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 516.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.
#### STATE v. LINDSEY

No. 485P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 606.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982.