alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009165EN.01000401.xml

| 17.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 July 2009

2009/C 165/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4130 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4456 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85910 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0135 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5154 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0015 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,861 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,82 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7005 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2900 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2313 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1570 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7582 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5787 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9512 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,1852 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0501 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 795,45 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4575 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,6526 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3270 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 305,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0465 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,739 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,9351 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,130 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7279 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,1829 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,7710 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4130

JPY

Japanese yen

132,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4456

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85910

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0135

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5154

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0015

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,861

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,82

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7005

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2900

RON

Romanian leu

4,2313

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1570

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7582

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5787

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9512

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,1852

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0501

KRW

South Korean won

1 795,45

ZAR

South African rand

11,4575

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,6526

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3270

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 305,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0465

PHP

Philippine peso

67,739

RUB

Russian rouble

44,9351

THB

Thai baht

48,130

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7279

MXN

Mexican peso

19,1829

INR

Indian rupee

68,7710

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

WILLIE FRED BAUCHAM,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 4:10cv263-MP/WCS

MIKE MOCK, SHERIFF, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, who is no longer pro se in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, doc. 9, has filed a response, doc. 34, to the motion to dismiss filed by

Defendant Franklin County on March 28, 2011. Doc. 30. 

Franklin County asserts dismissal is appropriate because the complaint "fails to

make any allegation against the County and fails to seek any judicial relief against the

County." Doc. 30. Furthermore, Franklin County asserts that the Sheriff of the County

exercises criminal search and arrest powers, not the County, as the County is not a law

enforcement agency that carries out those duties. Id. Thus, because the Sheriff is a

separate and distinct legal entity, Franklin County seeks dismissal with prejudice. Id. 

Case 4:10-cv-00263-MP-WCS Document 35 Filed 05/12/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff submits in response to the motion to dismiss "that under the current and

alleged factual basis" of the complaint, Franklin County "does not appear to have liability

in this case." Doc. 34, p. 2. Plaintiff does not dispute Franklin County's assertion that

the second amended complaint, doc. 9, contains no factual allegations against this

Defendant. Plaintiff requests, however, that discovery may provide "facts that would

alter the current analysis." That is the most appropriate course of action. It is

reasonably foreseeable that discovery will not produce evidence to support a claim

against the County, but that is unknown at this time. The motion to dismiss, doc. 30,

should be granted, but without prejudice and subject to the requirements of the Initial

and Final Scheduling Orders and Rule 15 for amendment of the complaint to reinstate

the claim against the County.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant

Franklin County's amended motion to dismiss, doc. 30, be GRANTED and Franklin

County be DISMISSED without prejudice, and this case be REMANDED for further

proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on May 12, 2011.

 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.

Case No. 4:10cv263-MP/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00263-MP-WCS Document 35 Filed 05/12/11 Page 2 of 2
#### WACHOVIA BANK v. RUBISH

No. 54A81.

Case below: 306 N.C. 417.

Petition by plaintiff to rehear denied 21 September 1982.
Case 4:09-cv-00323-SPM-WCS Document 4 Filed 09/14/09 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Myriad Interactive Media, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Derek Ivany, Chief 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.  By:/s/ Derek IvanyName:Derek IvanyTitle:Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and DirectorDate:October 15, 2012  This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, William Gerlib, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Explore Anywhere Holding Corp.





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 quarterly 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: January 19, 2011








By: /s/ William Gerlib Name: William Gerlib,


Title: Interim CEO (Principal Executive Officer) and Director
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 06, 2009

Mr. Robert Craig Stern

Killeen & Stern, P.C.

400 Poydras Street, Suite 1710

New Orleans, LA 70130

Honorable Levi James Benton

215th Judicial District Court

201 Caroline, 13th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Mr. Robert Joseph Killeen Jr.

Killeen & Stern, P.C.

8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 614

Houston, TX 77046

Mr. Neil D. Kelly

Andrews Kurth LLP

600 Travis, Suite 4200

Houston, TX 77002

RE:Case Number:  08-0977

Court of Appeals Number:  01-08-00782-CV

Trial Court Number:  2008-53948

Style:IN RE  RUBEN S. MARTIN III

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-0977Page 1**
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING ANDFINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Grant Hartford Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, David Gilmer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
Dated: August 14, 2012

/s/David Gilmer
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Annual Report of Laredo  Investment  Corp. on Form 10-KSB
for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Pierce, Chief 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, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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.



By: /s/ Richard Pierce
Richard Pierce, CEO, Director
Date: April13, 2004

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7236

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DURHAM COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; SHERIFF CLARENCE BIRKHEAD; MAJOR E. BAZMORE; LIEUTENANT PEELE; ARAMARK; MANAGER PAM , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00031

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : September 22, 2022 Decided: September 26, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in th is circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Derrick Michael Allen, Sr. , appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Allen ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Ac cordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Allen v. Durham Cnty. Det. Facility , No.
1:21

- cv - 00031

- TDS

- LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7236 Doc: 6 Filed: 09/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

DUANE JARRELL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00137-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to

File Memorandum of Law. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff requests one additional business day to

file his memorandum. The motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall have through

December 20, 2010 to file his memorandum. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of December 2010. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00162-MP -GRJ

2005 FORD F-350 TRUCK VIN 1FTWW33P45EB39321,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 16, claimant Domingo Jimenez’s Motion to

Compel Production and Request for Attorney Fees and Other Relief. The government responded

at Doc. 17. The motion at Doc. 16 asks for an order of the Court – 

granting [claimant’s] Motion to Compel Production which was duly filed and

served on March 4, 2011 , (Copy attached hereto) and to which the Plaintiff has

failed and/or refused to comply with, despite Defendant's counsel's agreement to

extend the time for responding thereto, by an additional 10 days...

The Court interprets this to mean that a request for production was served on the government on

March 4, 2011, and that a copy of the Request for Production would be attached to the motion. 

Only a faxed letter from claimant’s counsel to the government and an affidavit of claimant are

attached to Doc. 16. In Doc. 17, the government states that it has "complied with defendant’s

request for production of documents by providing the following...." The response then lists five

motions, but does not specify when they were produced.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A), the Court must award payment of reasonable expenses

for bringing a motion to compel if the nonmovant only produced the documents after the motion

was filed. Here, the Court does not know what was requested in the Requests to Produce and so

cannot determine if the government’s responses were compliant. Also, the Court does not know

Case 1:10-cv-00162-MP-GRJ Document 18 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

the date on which the government provided the five documents listed in its response, thus the

Court cannot determine whether they trigger Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Accordingly, it is

hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The claimant shall file a clarification of its motion to compel which (1) has a copy of the

Requests for Production attached; and (2) sets out the degree of compliance by the

government and the dates thereof.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00162-MP -GRJ

Case 1:10-cv-00162-MP-GRJ Document 18 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2011304EN.01001301.xml

| 15.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/13

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 304/08

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 7.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 7.9.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | WHB/1X14 |
| Species | Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 959469 |

Date and time of closure

7.9.2011

Duration

7.9.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

WHB/1X14

Species

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

Micromesistius poutassou

Zone

EU and international waters of I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

959469

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
**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 on Form 10-Q of Global MobileTech, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Aik Fun Chong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  November 15, 2010

By:  /s/ Aik Fun Chong

 

       Aik Fun Chong

 

       President and Chief   

       Executive Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 23, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01521-CV IN RE REGINALD ARLEIGH NOBLE, Relator Original Proceeding from the Cr iminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Relator Reginald Arleigh Noble filed a petition for writ of quo warranto in this Court, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.1, claiming Criminal Distric t Court No. 4 lacked jurisdic tion to convict him in 2000 for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age and asking this Court to grant him a new trial. Noble was convicted of aggravated sexual assa ult of a child and sentenced to life in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. See Noble v. State , No. 08-01-00035- CR, 2002 WL 221886 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 4, 2002, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). A writ of quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy used for rais ing certain actions against private corporations and railroad companies as well as raising questions concerning the proper person entitled to hold a public office and exercise its functi ons. T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A

NN . § 66.001; see State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger , 932 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. 1996); Save Our Springs All., Inc. v. Lazy Nine M un. Util. Dist. ex rel. Bd. of Directors , 198 S.W.3d 300, 310–2– (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, pet. denied). Quo warranto proceedi ngs are brought in the name of the State by the Attorney General or the proper district or cou nty attorney. Robinson v. Neeley , 192 S.W.3d 904, 909 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). Noble’s petition complains that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him; he does not raise an issue for which a writ of quo warranto is available. Therefore, quo wa rranto is an improper vehicle f or obtaining the relief he seeks. Furthermore, the writ power of t his Court is limited to issuing writs of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, which does n ot include a writ of quo warranto.
See T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(a). The Texas Supreme Court, not the courts of appe als, is vested with the power to issue writs of quo warranto. T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.002(a); see T EX
. C ONST . art. V, § 3. We do not have original jurisdiction over proce edings seeking a writ of quo
warranto. Finally, even if we broadly construed Noble’s filing, there is no substance presented in support of his often repeated conc lusory statement that Crimina l District Court No. 4 lacked jurisdiction to convict him for aggr avated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age and then sentence him to life in prison. We dismiss Noble’s petition f or lack of jurisdiction.

191521F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
October 16, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MANLEY DEWAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00693-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below, and having 

inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring 

reversal, but there was error in the judgment as entered, which is capable of reformation 

by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is modified to delete the listing of a specific 

amount of court costs.

The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### STATE v. CROUCH

No. 160 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 172.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1972.