alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011037EN.01000601.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/6

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia apply

2011/C 37/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1), as amended by Decision 2011/79/CFSP (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 (3) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.

1

2

3

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62.

1

(2)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2001, p. 40.

2

(3)  OJ L 31, 5.2.2001, p. 1.

3

---
Case 4:10-cv-00109-RH-WCS Document 44 Filed 12/16/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:10-cv-00109-RH-WCS Document 44 Filed 12/16/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:10-cv-00109-RH-WCS Document 44 Filed 12/16/10 Page 3 of 3
# C_2011350EN.01000901.xml

| 1.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/9

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

2011/C 350/05

Aid No: SA.33937 (11/XA)

Member State: Belgium

Region: Vlaams Gewest

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Facultatieve subsidie aan het Steunpunt Streekproducten

Legal basis: Ministerieel besluit houdende de toekenning van een facultatieve subsidie aan het Vlaams Centrum voor Agro- en Visserijmarketing vzw betreffende het Steunpunt Streekproducten

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 0,03 million

Maximum aid intensity: 100 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 26 November 2011-31 December 2011

Objective of aid: Technical support (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Vlaamse overheid |
| --- |
| Departement Landbouw en Visserij |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40 |
| 1030 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Vlaamse overheid

Departement Landbouw en Visserij

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40

1030 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Website: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?id=2358

Other information: —

Aid No: SA.33938 (11/XA)

Member State: Belgium

Region: Vlaams Gewest

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Facultatieve subsidie aan het Steunpunt Hoeveproducten

Legal basis: Ministerieel besluit houdende de toekenning van een facultatieve subsidie aan KVLV vzw betreffende het Steunpunt Hoeveproducten

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme: EUR 0,03 million

Maximum aid intensity: 100 %

Date of implementation: —

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: 25 November 2011-31 December 2011

Objective of aid: Technical support (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006)

Sector(s) concerned: Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Vlaamse overheid |
| --- |
| Departement Landbouw en Visserij |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40 |
| 1030 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Vlaamse overheid

Departement Landbouw en Visserij

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 40

1030 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Website: http://lv.vlaanderen.be/nlapps/docs/default.asp?id=2357

Other information: —

---
- Text75: 
    - Text76: 
    - Text77:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ALBERTO PEREZ-SORIA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-70733 

Agency No. A205-320-747 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Luis Alberto Perez-Soria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

 

* 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

JUL 7 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70733 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due 

process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for 

review. 

Perez-Soria contends he was denied due process as a result of being unable 

to fully present his case due to his former counsel’s incompetence and IJ bias. We

lack jurisdiction to consider Perez-Soria’s contentions regarding his former 

counsel. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (petitioner must first 

exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claim by raising it to the BIA). We reject 

Perez-Soria’s contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the IJ’s preclusion 

of his second witness because Perez-Soria did not raise this issue to the BIA. 

Further, we reject Perez-Soria’s contention that the IJ violated his due process 

rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and 

prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1137 

(9th Cir. 2004) (IJ’s conduct did not deny petitioners due process). Perez-Soria 

does not otherwise challenge the agency’s denial of his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
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 Annual Report of Royal Quantum Group, Inc. a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
      2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), Ron Ruskowsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies
      to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





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




/s/ Ron
              RuskowskyRon Ruskowsky
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
                April
                  12, 2007








1
#### WILKIE v. WILKIE

No. 509P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 624.

Petition by defendants for discretionary. review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1982.
Silberstein Ungar, PLLCCPAs and Business Advisors Phone (248) 203-0080 Fax (248) 281-0940 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175 Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586 www.sucpas.com   October 14, 2013  To the Board of Directors of Myriad Interactive Media, Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada  To Whom It May Concern:   Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  Silberstein Ungar, PLLC, hereby consents to the use in the hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, filed by Myriad Interactive Media, Inc. of our report dated October 14, 2013, relating to the financial statements of Myriad Interactive Media, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, as of and for the years ending June 30, 2013 and 2012.  Sincerely,  /s/ Silberstein Ungar, PLLC  Silberstein Ungar, PLLC
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128726 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128726 COA: 261007 Monroe CC: 04-033350-FH JARED DOUGLAS AYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

CentraSoftware, Inc.: 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-107809, No. 333-97333, No. 333-60718 and No. 333-40268) of Centra Software, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10 K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 15, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7399
CHARLES MANSEL THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus S. R. WITKOWSKI, Warden, P.C.I.; STAN BURKE, Deputy Warden, P.C.I,; UNKNOWN MALE OFFICERS OF 1ST, 2ND, AND 3RD SHIFTS, P.C.I.; UNKNOWN FEMALE SECRETARY TO STAN BU RKE, P.C.I.; SERGEANT BROWN, 1st Shift Assistant Supervisor, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-1109-23BD) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Mansel Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Keith Wray, II, GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Thomas v. Witkowski , No. CA-95-1109-23BD (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 1996). We deny the motion for oral argument and 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
# C_2009099EN.01000201.xml

| 30.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 April 2009

2009/C 99/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3266 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4483 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89875 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7597 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5064 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7320 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,690 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4140 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1883 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1182 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8434 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5942 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2816 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,3233 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9708 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 771,85 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3115 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0547 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4225 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 333,91 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7592 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,713 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,9300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,915 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,8973 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1459 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,3760 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3266

JPY

Japanese yen

128,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4483

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89875

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7597

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5064

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7320

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,690

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4140

RON

Romanian leu

4,1883

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1182

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8434

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5942

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2816

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,3233

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9708

KRW

South Korean won

1 771,85

ZAR

South African rand

11,3115

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0547

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4225

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 333,91

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7592

PHP

Philippine peso

64,713

RUB

Russian rouble

43,9300

THB

Thai baht

46,915

BRL

Brazilian real

2,8973

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1459

INR

Indian rupee

66,3760

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-4131NE

_____________ Twilia Phillips, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District of v. * Nebraska. * Plum Creek Medical Group, P.C., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: May 19, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Twilia Phillips appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in this employment discrimination lawsuit. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' b riefs, we conclude Phillips is not entitled to relief. Even assuming Phillip s suffer ed an adverse employment action, there is no substantial evidence in the record tending to show the reason given by her employer was a pretext for age discrimination. We agree with the district court's analysis and affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2009038EN.01000802.xml

| 17.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5220 — ENI/Distrigaz)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 38/05)

On 15 October 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

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

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5220. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5220. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. D A R R IN D E N T , a. k. a. B o, a. k. a. D arre n D ent , a. k. a. D arri n L anai l D ent , a. k. a. D a rr in L y n e ll D e n t, a .k .a . D a rry l D e n t, a. k. a. D anny M adi son H i l l , a. k. a. D arre n Me j e s s e Hi l l , a . k . a . Darr i n Hi l l , a . k . a . D. M adi son, a. k. a. D enni s M adi son, a. k. a. A n th o n y M ad ra, a. k . a. K en o P eo p l es, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 50548 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 0 -cr-0 0 9 2 3 -S JO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J a m e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Darr i n De n tap p e a l s f

r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s j u d g m e n ta n dc h a l l e n g e s two



# FI LED MA Y21 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 50548 2 c ondi t i ons of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e i m pos e d a s partof hi s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for c on spi ra cyt o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stribu t e a control l ed subst ance , i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 46 . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w th e le g a lityo f as e n te n c e d e n o v o , se e U ni ted States v. N ap i er , 4 6 3 F. 3 d1 0 4 0 , 1 0 4 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. D e n t c o n te n d s th a t tw o s p e c ia l c o n d itio n s o f s up e rv is e dr e le a s e in c lu d e din the w ri tt en j ud gm entm ustbe m od i fi ed or stri cken because they w er e noti ncl ud ed i n the or a l pr onounc e m e ntof s e nt e nc i ng. W e di s a gr e e . T he w r i tt e n j udgm e nt control s bec ause i tdi d n otadd any subst ant i ve cond i t i on s t o D ent ’ s s ent ence that w en t b ey o n dw h at D en t an dh is co u n se l co u ldh av e a n ti cip ated fr o m th e c o u rt’s s ta te m e n ts a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . Se e i d. a t1043. AF F I RME D.
#### W. R. ADAMS v. CLYDE BESHEARS and Wife, DEWIE L. BESHEARS and OSLER LANKFORD and Wife, JEANNETTE B. LANKFORD.

(Filed 4 November, 1964.)

Highways § *IS;*Easements § 4—

Allegations to the effect that plaintiff and his predecessors in title had used a cartway with definite boundaries across the lands of defendants to a highway as the only ingress and egress to a public way, that such use was adverse to defendants and their predecessors in title for more than 100 years, *held*to state a cause of action to establish an easement by prescription and not one to establish a neighborhood public road, and therefore demurrer on the ground that the clerk had exclusive original jurisdiction should have been overruled.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McLaughlin, J.,*June 1964 Special Session of WlLKES.

Action to restrain defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s right to use a road extending from plaintiff’s 84-acre tract across defendants’ (adjoining) 10.35-acre tract to hard surface road No. 1514.

Plaintiff alleged, *inter alia,*the following: The road across defendants’ said tract is the only way of ingress and egress from No. 1514 to plaintiff’s said tract and tenant houses thereon. This road “has been used by the plaintiff and his predecessors in title continuously and exclusively under well defined and specific lines and adversely to the defendants and their predecessors in title for more than 100 years . . .” Defendants purchased their tract with full knowledge of said road and plaintiff’s *easement*therein.

Defendants answered. Thereafter, when the case was called for trial, defendants demurred *ore tenus.*Defendants asserted, as ground for demurrer, that the superior court had no jurisdiction for that the facts alleged in the complaint “plead a cause for the establishment of a neighborhood public road, and . . . allege a special proceeding . . . required to be instituted before the Clerk Superior Court.”

The court entered judgment sustaining the demurrer *ore tenus,*dismissing the action and taxing plaintiff with the costs. (A temporary restraining order was continued in effect pending decision on appeal and “final disposition” of the cause.) Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*E. James Moore far plaintiff appellant.*

*Ralph Davis and Moore & Rousseau for defendant*appellees..

Per Curiam.

In our view, the cause of action alleged by plaintiff is that he has an easement appurtenant to his tract, acquired by prescription, as a way of access between his tract and No. 1514. Plaintiff, *741by brief, asserts this is his alleged cause of action. His complaint does not use the phrase “neighborhood public road,” and he does not contend his alleged cause of action is for the establishment of such road.

Defendant, if so advised, may move that the court require the complaint “to be made definite and certain by amendment.” G.S. 1-153.

Reversed.