alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darlene ROBERTSON.

No. 61751.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1978.

In re: Darlene Robertson applying for writs of review. Ouachita Parish.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable John R. Joyce Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Ouachita, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 17th day of July, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Argument is especially requested- as to Assignments 11 and 12 (Criminal mischief).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         123,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  705,772
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,815)
<INVENTORY>                                    134,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,260,099
<PP&E>                                       3,504,869
<DEPRECIATION>                               (784,056)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,815,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          977,679
<BONDS>                                      1,271,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,672,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,815,706
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,164,488
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  787,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,230)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,564
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                180,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            137,762
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000947969
<NAME> MANGOSOFT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> $

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,492
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,599
<PP&E>                                           2,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,866
<SALES>                                              1
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,243)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.68)




</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby
consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Barrick Gold Corporation (the company), and to the incorporation by reference on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-121500, 333-131715, 333-135769), Form F-3 (File
No. 333-206417) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-216099) of the company, of our report dated February 15, 2017 relating
to the companys 2016 and 2015 consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016.



|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada                                                                      
|March 24, 2017
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6309

GAMIN RAUL MACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00678-LMB) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gamin Raul Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gamin Raul Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      83,910,000
<SECURITIES>                               110,008,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              124,192,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                10,540,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           393,931,000
<PP&E>                                     295,124,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              65,960,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,045,120,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      346,168,000
<BONDS>                                    242,398,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       141,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 303,573,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,045,120,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,037,203,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              962,779,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,851,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,181,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             53,392,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                13,796,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         39,596,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                39,596,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
<FN>
<F1>Identifiable integration, settlement, and other costs
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7169

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENLEY EARL WALTERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock,

Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-190, CA-02-223-1)

Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 25, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denley Earl Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Denley Earl Walters appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion

for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), and

denying his later motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Walters, Nos. CR-93-190; CA-02-223-1

(M.D.N.C. filed May 9, 2002 & entered May 10, 2002; filed July 3,

2002 & entered July 5, 2002). We 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
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15809]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97c4f2f4e5f2e3f6e5eed7f1faf4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0655636574637267747f46606b6528616970">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the 
Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the 
Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of 
Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f98d8b989d9c98979895808a908ab99f949ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f88c8a999c9d99969994818b918bb89e959bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 012429-003.
    Agreement Name: THE Alliance Agreement.
    Parties: Hapag Lloyd AG & Hapag-Lloyd USA, LLC (acting as a single 
party); Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd.; and Yang Ming Marine Transport 
Corporation & Yangming (UK) Ltd. (acting as a single party).
    Filing Party: Joshua Stein, Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The Amendment authorizes the Parties to increase the 
amount contributed by each party to the contingency fund after the 
transition from five Parties to three, and deletes provisions that are 
no longer necessary since the transition of membership from the three 
Japanese lines to Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd. The Parties have 
requested Expedited Review.
    Proposed Effective Date: 9/1/2018.
    Location: http://fmcinet/Fmc.Agreements.Web/Public/
AgreementHistory/1912.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Rachel Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15809 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          2,319,040
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      69,050
<ALLOWANCES>                       53,229
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,512,986
<PP&E>                          2,086,331
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,897,653
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,760,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,749,910
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           19,884
<OTHER-SE>                     (1,008,810)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,760,984
<SALES>                            35,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   35,678
<CGS>                                 275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,097,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                363,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (5,422,102)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (5,422,102)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (2.02)


</TABLE>
#### Robert Duane CENTERS, alias Don Gardner, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-38.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 23, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William W. Herring, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Glaze v. State of Florida, 249 So.2d 742 (Fla.App.1971).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         691,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               741,321
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 741,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,935
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     459,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   741,321
<SALES>                                        785,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,946,034
<CGS>                                          211,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  211,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               518,142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,216,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,216,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,216,404
<EPS-BASIC>                                      17.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.60


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of First Investors Financial Services, Inc., (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, BennieH. Duck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

Date:  Dec 12, 2005

 
|   | By: /s/ Bennie  H. Duck  |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Bennie H. Duck           |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
Order entered September 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01254-CV

No. 05-13-01255-CV

No. 05-13-01256-CV

No. 05-13-01257-CV

IN RE TROY LEE PERKINS, RELATOR

Original Proceeding from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-00645-S, F07-71769-S, F07-71970-S, F07-71990-S

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ JIM MOSELEY 

JUSTICE
#### Michael Wayne BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
1 

### B E C K H A M
, L I SA

Fr o m: M a r k .H a jdu k@a p s

. c om S e nt: W e dn e s d ay , J ul y 02

, 2014 10 : 47 AM T o: B E C KH AM

, LIS A ; L y o n s , A nn; Jo hn

_ N o t a r @ n p s .g ov; r b i s ht @ n a v a j o

- n s n.g ov; R i o s , G e r a rd o ; Bo hning, S c o tt C c: C h a rl e s .S p e ll @a p s

. c o m; M i c h ae l.K a f ka@ p inn ac l e w e s t. c o m; N ea l. B r o wn @a p s

. c o m; P a me l a .N o rri s@a p s

. c o m; Da v id. B l oo m fi e ld @a p s

. c o m; J a ni ce

. M ilf o rd -D ea l @a p s

. c om S u b j ec t: A dd e ndu m t o Fo ur C o rn e r s P o w e r P l a nt S C R P r o j ec t P S D A pp li ca ti on Att a chme nt s: Fo ur C o rn e r s P o w e r P l a nt S C R R e tr o fit P r o j ec t

- A dd e ndu m

- 7

- 02

- 2014 -s ign e d. p df; A TT 00001 .txt



### L isa, a t t ac h e d i s t h e A P S r e s p o n s e t o t h e L e t te r E P A s e n t t o A P S o n Jun e 18
, 2 0 1 4

. A h ar d c o p y w ill b e s e n t o u t

s h o r t l y

. P l e as e l e t m e k n o w if y o u h a v e a n y qu e s t i o n s

. T h a n ks y o u !

M a r k H a j duk E n v i ro n m e nt a l C o n s u l t a nt

- A i r Q u a l i ty 400 N o r th 5t h St r e e t , P h oe n i x , A Z 85004-390 2 , M

. S

. 9303
T el 602-250-3394 C ell 6 02-319-6335

m a r k

. h a jdu k@a p s. c om a p s . c om
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41456

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN TORRES-MARCIAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-399-1

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

August 6, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Torres-Marcial appeals his conviction, based on his

guilty plea, of transporting an alien who was in the United States

illegally. He argues that the district court did not explain to

him that an essential element of the offense was that he must have

acted willfully in furtherance of the aliens’ violation of the law.

Therefore, Torres contends that he is entitled to reversal on

grounds that the district court did not comply adequately with Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(c) prior to accepting his guilty plea. 
No. 98-41456

-2-

“When an appellant claims that a district court failed to

comply with Rule 11, we apply a two-question harmless error

analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the

procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance

affect substantial rights of the defendant?” United States v.

Reyna, 130 F.3d 104, 107 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.

1328 (1998). Thus, even if there was a variance from Rule 11(c),

Torres is not entitled to relief unless the variance “‘may

reasonably be viewed as having been a material factor affecting

[his] decision to plead guilty.’” United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d

296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (quoting United States v.

Bachynsky, 934 F.2d 1349, 1360 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc)). 

At the rearraignment, the prosecutor, not the court, read the

indictment to Torres, which included the accusation that Torres

transported aliens “in furtherance of such violation of law.” In

response to the court’s questions, Torres twice testified that he

understood the offense charge against him. “Solemn declarations in

open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Torres testified that he was

pleading guilty because the evidence as stated in the factual basis

was true. 

Even if the district court erred by omitting a specific

discussion of the “in furtherance” element, we find Torres is not

entitled to relief because the record shows that this variance did

not affect his decision to plead guilty. 

AFFIRMED. 
No. 98-41456

-3-