alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 15

- 00103

- CR

JEREMY JERMAINE HODGE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Panola County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012

- C

- 0098

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION On June 27, 2012, Jeremy Jermaine H odge pled guilty in three separate causes to burglary of a building 1 and two counts of credit card abuse. 2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court
sentenced Hodge in each case to two years’ incarceration in a state jail facility 3 and fined him $10,000.00 per case. In its judgment of conviction in each case, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentences, suspended all or part of the fines, 4 and placed Hodge on four years’ community supervision. On January 27, 2015, the State moved t o revoke Hodge’s community supervision in each of the cases. After a hearing, the trial court , in each case, revoked Hodge’s community supervision, sentenced him to twenty

- four months ’ incarceration in a state jail facility with credit for time served, or dered the sentences to run concurrently, and dismissed any remaining
fine balances. This appeal is from the revocation of one of the counts of Hodge’s community supervision on credit card abuse. 5 In a consolidated brief addressing a single issue raised in all three cases, Hodge contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is grossly disproportiona te to his community supervision violations. The argument raised in this appeal is identical to the argument raised in

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 30.02(a), (c)(1) (West 2011).

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 32.31(b), (d) (West 2011).

3 A state jail felony is punishable by confinement in a state jail for not less than 180 days and not more than two years, and by a fine of not more than $10,000.00. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.35(a), (b) (West Supp. 2014).

4 T he trial court suspended the $10,000.00 fine in the conviction for burglary of a building, and $9,000.00 each, of the fines in the two convictions for credit card abuse.

5 The revocation of his community supervision on his conviction of burglary of a build ing and o f credit card abuse have also been appealed to this C ourt and addressed in opinions released the same date as this opi nion, in our ca u se numbers 06

- 15

- 00101

- CR and 06

- 15

- 00102

- CR.3

the companion appeal styled Hodg e v. State, cause number 06

- 15

- 00 101

- CR. In our opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found that th is Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Hodge’s
issue. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice
Date Submitted: October 30, 2015 Date Decided: December 2 , 2015
Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 31, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 61607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5396]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache, Greenlee and Navajo 
Counties, AZ; Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Public Motorized 
Travel Management Plan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; 
Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 10, 2007, the Federal Register published a Notice 
of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for 
the Motorized Travel Management Plan on the Apache-Sitgreaves National 
Forests (72 FR 57514-57517). That document indicated that the proposed 
transportation system is depicted in detail on the Apache-Sitgreaves 
National Forests Travel Management Plan Proposed Action Map located on 
the Forests Web site and that the Forests transportation system open to 
motorized travel under this proposal would be approximately 2,892 
miles. Correction of both of these statements is necessary.
    Correction: In the Federal Register of October 10, 2007, in FR Doc. 
72-195, on page 57515, correct the proposed Action caption, second 
column, last paragraph, first and second sentence to read:

    The Forests transportation system open to motorized travel under 
this proposal would be approximately 2868 miles. This is a change of 
approximately 78 miles from the existing condition of approximately 
2,946 open miles.

    In the Federal Register of October 10, 2007, in FR Doc. 72-195, on 
page 57515, correct the Proposed Action caption, third column, second 
paragraph, first sentence to read:

    The proposed motorized public transportation system maps will be 
available for your review, prior to the public meetings, on the 
Forests Web Site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/travel-management.shtml.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Copeland, Travel Management Team 
Leader at (928) 333-4301/(928) 339-4384.

    Dated: October 24, 2007.
Elaine Zieroth,
Forests Supervisor, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
[FR Doc. 07-5396 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

LINDA KRUGER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00070-MP-WCS

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 15, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, recommending that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner under

sentence four of 405(g). The Claimant does not object.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. Defendant's motion for entry of judgment and remand, doc. 13, is granted. The

Clerk is directed to enter final judgment REVERSING the Commissioner's

decision to deny benefits, and REMANDING the application to the

Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and

for the purposes stated in the motion. 

3. Pursuant to Bergen v. Commissioner, 454 F.3d 1273, 1277-78 (11th Cir. 2006),

proceedings on attorney fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

are stayed until the matter is fully adjudicated upon remand. The Plaintiff shall

file a motion to award fees under 406(b) within 30 days after counsel receives

notice from the Defendant Commissioner as to Plaintiff’s past due benefits.
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00070-MP-WCS

4. This stay relates only to attorney fee proceedings under § 406(b) of the Social

Security Act, not to attorney fee proceedings under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the latter of which may be adjudicated at this time. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
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 Annual Report of GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhong Ya Li, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 30, 2011





GFR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.





/s/Zhong Ya LiZhong Ya Li, Chief Financial Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134345 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134345 

 COA: 276861 

Macomb CC: 2006-000455-FC 

TIMOTHY MARK YAX,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
<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 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of KV Pharmaceutical Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that, to the best of their
knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 14, 2003    /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Marc S. Hermelin
                           Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 14, 2003    /s/ Gerald R. Mitchell
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Gerald R. Mitchell
                           Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to KV Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by KV
Pharmaceutical Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 12 - 0486 - CV

________________________ In the Interest of N.F., D.F., J.F., and M.F., Children On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Lubbock County, Texas Tri a l Court No . 2003 - 522,865, Honorable Kevin Hart , Presiding 

### May 7 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK , JJ. Appellant Donald Fierro had his parental rights to N.F., D.F., J.F. and M.F. terminated and has appealed from that order. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the recor d, she has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Appellant filed a response to the Anders brief wherein he contended that 1) he was unable to access the record on the DVD mailed to him by his attorney, 2) trial counsel was ineffective and 3) the tri al court erred in terminating his rights because the evidence2 was insufficient to support termination. We then directed appellant’s attorney to provide him with a paper record and extended his time to file a response to April 29, 2013. To date, no other response has been filed. Nor has appellant sought any additional time to respond. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to support termination under the statutory ground (E) as alleged in the termination petition. However, counsel then proceeded to explain how the evidence was sufficient to support this ground and explained how only one sufficient ground supported termination. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Upon conducting that review, we determine d that appellant 1) had notice of the grounds proffered for terminating his parental rights, 2) appeared at the hearing by teleconference, and 3) through counsel, had the opportunity to defend against the accusations, present evidence and cross examine wit nesses. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial legally and factually supported at least one of the grounds for termination. See In re P.E.W ., 105 S.W.3d 771, 777 (Tex. App.
– Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (holding that though the trial court found several statutory grounds warranting termination of the parent/child relationship, we need not determine whether each enjoys the requisite amount of evidentiary support. Instead, the decision may be affirmed if the evide nce supports the existence of one ground and that termination is in the best interest of the child). The record also contains3 evidence upon which the trial court could clearly and convincingly find that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in th e best interest of the child. Accordingly, having found no arguable merit to the appeal, we affirm the order for termination and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice
NO. 12-11-00224-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

 § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH

EX PARTE:

 § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BARRY WION 

§ ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On July 26, 2011, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s order denying 

his motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc. On July 28, 2011, this court notified Appellant, 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal 

does not contain a final judgment or other appealable order. See Shadowbrook Apartments v. 

Abu-Ahmad, 783 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Tex. 1990) (holding that order denying motion for judgment 

nunc pro tunc is not appealable). Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be 

dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before August 29, 

2011, to show the jurisdiction of this court. 

On August 19, 2011, Appellant responded that the trial court’s order is final and 

appealable because it disposes of all issues and parties in the suit. He responded further that the 

trial court’s docket sheet entry is sufficient to show that the order was signed. However, these 

arguments and the authority Appellant cites do not address the Texas Supreme Court’s holding in 

Shadowbrook Apartments and do not show that this case is an exception to that holding. 

Consequently, Appellant has not shown this court’s jurisdiction of the appeal. Accordingly, the 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3.

Opinion delivered August 24, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANGEL ALEJANDRO CARMONA, a.k.a. Lil Criminal,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50210

D.C. No. 2:16

- cr

- 00401

- ODW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright

, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

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

Angel Alejandro Carmona appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 1 2 5

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction

for c onspiracy to p ossess with i ntent to d istribute and to d istribute

methamphetamine, in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 846 . We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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

MAY 18 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50210

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Carmona contends that the district court proc edurally erred by failing to

address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and explain its reasons for the sentence. We

review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103,

1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district court considered

and discussed the advisory Guidelines range and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing facto rs, and explained at length the reasons for the sentence. See Rita v.

United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“The sentencing judge should set forth

enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments

and has a reasoned ba sis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”).

The court also considered Carmona’s mitigating arguments.

Carmona also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because

the district court sentenced him to 125 months, despite recommendations of 120

months from probation, the government, and the defense. The district c ourt did not

abuse its discretion in imposing Carmona’s within

- Guidelines sentence. See Gall

v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substanti vely reasonable

in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. See

Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

.

AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 12 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### STATE v. BRYANT

No. 62 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 530.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 9 December 1971.
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 8 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 9 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 10 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 11 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 12 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 13 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 14 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 15 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 16 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 17 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 18 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 19 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 20 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 21 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 22 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 23 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 24 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 25 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 26 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 27 of 28
Case 4:10-cv-00081-RH-WCS Document 22 Filed 05/11/10 Page 28 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

VS CASE NO. 3:10cr30/MCR

ROBERT E. BOURLIER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on April 19, 2011

Motion/Pleadings: GOVERNMENT’S THIRD MOTION IN LIMINE (IN CAMERA) 

Filed by Government on 4/1/11 Doc.# 181 

RESPONSES:

None on Doc.#

on Doc.#

 Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/ Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 23rd day of 

April, 2011, that:

The relief requested is GRANTED.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No.

Case 3:10-cr-00030-MCR Document 231 Filed 04/23/11 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. ATKINS

No. 450P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 146.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 September 1982. Motion by Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 21 September 1982.
Exhibit 32.1 - Principal Executive Officer and Principal FinancialOfficer Certification (Section 906)

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officerof Monster Offers, a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2011 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form10-Q").

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-Q fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Paul Gain

Paul Gain

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

 

 

Date August 22, 2011
# C_2011183EN.01001701.xml

| 24.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/17

---

Commission Communication concerning the implementation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 552/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (1)

1

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of Community specifications under the Regulation)

2011/C 183/06

| Organisation | Reference | Edition number | Title of the Community specifications | Edition date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ETSI (2) | EN 303 214 | V1.1.1 | Data Link Services (DLS) System; Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation (EC) No 552/2004; Requirements for ground constituents and system testing | March 2011 |

Organisation

Reference

Edition number

Title of the Community specifications

Edition date

ETSI (2)

2

EN 303 214

V1.1.1

Data Link Services (DLS) System; Community Specification for application under the Single European Sky Interoperability Regulation (EC) No 552/2004; Requirements for ground constituents and system testing

March 2011

---

(1)  OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 26.

1

(2)  European Telecommunications Standards Institute: 650 route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France, tel. +33 492944200, fax +33 493654716, http://www.etsi.org

2

---
#### IN RE HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MONTGOMERY

No. 75P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 422.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982.