alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1 - Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
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 Officer of Monster
Offers, a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 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  May 18, 2011
      ------------


<PAGE>
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al

vs

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al

Case No. 3:10cv91/RV/EMT

ORDER

Your document, EXPARTE UNINSURED TAXPAYER SALAMONE CHANGE OF

ADDRESS (received 5/21/2010), was referred to the undersigned with the following

deficiencies:

Gary P. Salamone is not a party to this suit.

The document does not have a Certificate of Service as required by Rule

5(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, showing proper

service.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The submitted hard copy of the document shall be returned to you by the Clerk

without electronic filing.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2010.

 /s Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 45 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133337 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: 133337 

 COA: 275179 

Muskegon CC: 06-053153-FC

LIBRADO CERVENTEZ GARZA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2007 

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. 

t0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GLENN LEE SELDEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv143-RH/WCS

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL 

AUTHORITY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, was granted in forma pauperis status, doc. 10, and

directed to submit a second amended complaint. Doc. 27. Plaintiff has now filed the

second amended complaint, doc. 35, which has been reviewed as is required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff's complaint is entirely fanciful. Plaintiff complains that his identification

was stolen, that he is being held hostage (presumably in prison), that one of the

Defendants stole "a top secret military computer" and Plaintiff's surety bonds were

infringed because Plaintiff "had no evidence of an exempted system" which Plaintiff

alleges is top secret. Plaintiff contends Defendant McNeil accepted millions of dollars to
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:10cv143-RH/WCS

hold Plaintiff in prison illegally, and President George W. Bush "put out 500 million for

'his' system . . . ." Plaintiff contends others have stolen a million dollars from Plaintiff

and Governor Crist has ignored this. Plaintiff alleges his personal "trademark copyright

copy claims" have been infringed. 

Plaintiff may not use a civil rights action to seek his release from prison. 

Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and unconnected with reality. There is no need to

continue this proceeding.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's second

amended complaint, doc. 35, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the order adopting

this report and recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the docket that this

cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 3, 2010.

 s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 amended quarterly report of Novagen Solar Inc. on Form
10-Q  for  the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Mills, President,
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer  and  Principal Accounting
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,  as  amended;  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: August 4, 2010                          By /s/ Thomas Mills
                                              Thomas Mills
                                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer, and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-6 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03475-LAP Document 7-6 Filed 07/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23.1


                            KYLE L. TINGLE, CPA , LLC








To Whom It May Concern:                                          January 5, 2006



The firm of Kyle L. Tingle, Certified Public Accountant,  LLC hereby consents to
the  inclusion  of his  report of  January 3,  2006,  accompanying  the  audited
financial statements of Flickering Star Financial, Inc., as at December 31, 2004
and December 31, 2005, in the Form 10KSB.


Very truly yours,


/s/ KYLE L. TINGLE
    ________________________
    Kyle L. Tingle, CPA, LLC

















        P.O. Box 50141, Henderson, Nevada 89016, Phone: (702) 434-8452,
             Fax: (702) 436-4218, e-mail: ktingle@kyletinglecpa.com
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

IBRAHIM GARCIA

- HERNANDEZ

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 140

LT Case No. 2017

- CF

- 026321

- A

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Decision filed March 7, 2023

Appeal from the Circu it Court

for Brevard County

, David C. Koenig , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,

and Robert Jackson Pearce, III,

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona

Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris

, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J.

, WALLIS and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.
##### 



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
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.
 /s/ D. Michael Kramer

D. Michael KramerPresident, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2007
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Weisman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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:  May 3, 2004

/S/David A. Weisman_____
David A. Weisman,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009168EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 July 2009

2009/C 168/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4217 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4462 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86010 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0023 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5198 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,838 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7004 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2980 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2390 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1476 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7510 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5702 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0184 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1714 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0489 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 772,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2989 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7118 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3352 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 202,88 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0350 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,141 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,9800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,359 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7122 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7878 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,5330 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4217

JPY

Japanese yen

134,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4462

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86010

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0023

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5198

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,838

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7004

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2980

RON

Romanian leu

4,2390

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1476

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7510

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5702

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0184

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1714

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0489

KRW

South Korean won

1 772,41

ZAR

South African rand

11,2989

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7118

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3352

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 202,88

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0350

PHP

Philippine peso

68,141

RUB

Russian rouble

43,9800

THB

Thai baht

48,359

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7122

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7878

INR

Indian rupee

68,5330

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DONNIE L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv238/LAC/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, 

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court upon Petitioner’s filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The court notes that Petitioner has neither applied for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee. Before this matter may proceed, Petitioner must

either pay the filing fee or obtain leave to proceed in forma pauperis by filing a fully and properly

completed application and attachments.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The clerk is directed to send to Petitioner an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order, Petitioner shall

either pay the filing fee of $5.00 or submit a fully completed application to proceed in forma

pauperis. 

3. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of

dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9 day of July 2010. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
#### TAYLOR v. STEVENS & CO.

No. 77 PC.

No. 35 (Spring Term).

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 216.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 December 1979.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

STEPHEN A. HODGSON

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-86/RS-MD

IAP READINESS MGMT. SUPPORT

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) 

regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Arbitrator’s Award, and Plaintiff’s Objection 

(Doc. 22). I have considered Plaintiff’s objections de novo. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. The case is dismissed.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file. 

ORDERED on October 5, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 2, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-61090

Summary Calendar

FAIZ RASOOL,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72-021-932

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Faiz Rasool, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this

court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”)

affirmance of the Immi gration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of

removal. While Rasool concedes that he is removable, he argues

that the IJ erred in denying his contested motion to terminate the

removal proceedings to permit him to pursue his ap plication for

adjustment of status with the Immigration and Naturalization

Service.2

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review factual

findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo

.

Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft

, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “We

accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration

statutes unless the record reveals compelling evidence that the

BIA’s interpretation is incorrect.” M ikhael v. INS

, 115 F.3d 299,

302 (5th Cir. 1997). While we normally only review the decision of

the BIA, when, as in this case, the BIA ado pts the IJ’s decision

without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Id.

The BIA has consistently held that “so long as the enforcement

officials of the Service choose to initiate proceedings against an

alien and to prosecute those proceedings t o a conclusion, the

immigration judge and the Board must order deportation if the

evidence supports a finding of deportability on the ground

charged.” I n re Yazdani

, 17 I. & N. Dec. 626, 630 (BIA 1981); see

also In re Singh

, 21 I. & N. Dec. 427, 435 (BIA 1996); In re Wong

,

13 I. & N. Dec. 701, 703 (BIA 1971). Rasool’s argument to the

contrary is wit hout merit. As the IJ did not have discretionary

authority to terminate the removal proceedings against Rasool, he

did not err in denying Rasool’s motion to terminate the removal

proceedings. S ee Lopez-Telles v. INS

, 564 F.2d 1302, 1304 (9th

Cir. 1977); Panova-Bohannan v. Ashcroft

, 74 Fed. Appx. 424, 425-26

(5th Cir. 2003)(unpublished).

Rasool also argues that the IJ erred in denying his3 G:\opin-sc\02-21355.opn.wpd application for voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to

consider this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); S ee Eyoum v.

INS , 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997).

Rasool’s petition for review is DENIED.
# C_2009236EN.01002201.xml

| 1.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/22

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.5632 — Pepsico/Pepsi Americas)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 236/08

| 1. | On 21 September 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Pepsico (USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation control of the whole of Pepsi Americas (USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 21 September 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Pepsico (USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation control of the whole of Pepsi Americas (USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Pepsico: food and beverage in over 200 countries, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Pepsico: food and beverage in over 200 countries,

| — | for Pepsi Americas: bottling mostly Pepsico beverages with operations in USA, Central and Eastern Europe, the Caribbean and Central America. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Pepsi Americas: bottling mostly Pepsico beverages with operations in USA, Central and Eastern Europe, the Caribbean and Central America.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5632 — Pepsico/Pepsi Americas, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5632 — Pepsico/Pepsi Americas, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2      Consent of Malone & Bailey, PLLC, independent public
                  accountants




                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-110309) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-109481,
333-106074, 333-97913) of Eagle Broadband, Inc. of our report dated December 5,
2003, relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A.

/s/ Malone & Bailey, PLLC
-------------------------
Malone & Bailey, PLLC
Houston, Texas
March 30, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-16      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-16      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Moody National REIT I, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Robert W. EngelRobert W. EngelChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### STATE v. LOCKLEAR

No. 249 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 378.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 August 1981.