alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2011196EN.01003301.xml

| 28.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 196/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 196/33

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 52/2011

of 20 May 2011

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/2011 of 1 April 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 38/2011 of 1 April 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2009/107/EC of 23 January 2009 amending Decisions 2006/861/EC and 2006/920/EC concerning technical specifications of interoperability relating to subsystems of the trans-European conventional rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2009/107/EC of 23 January 2009 amending Decisions 2006/861/EC and 2006/920/EC concerning technical specifications of interoperability relating to subsystems of the trans-European conventional rail system (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in points 37k (Commission Decision 2006/920/EC) and 37l (Commission Decision 2006/861/EC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32009 D 0107: Commission Decision 2009/107/EC of 23 January 2009 (OJ L 45, 14.2.2009, p. 1).’. |
| --- | --- |

—

32009 D 0107: Commission Decision 2009/107/EC of 23 January 2009 (OJ L 45, 14.2.2009, p. 1).’.

Article 2

The text of Decision 2009/107/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 21 May 2011, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 53/2011 of 20 May 2011 (3), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 11/2010 of 29 January 2010 (4), whichever is the latest.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The Acting President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 171, 30.6.2011, p. 39.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 45, 14.2.2009, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(3)  See page 34 of this Official Journal.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 101, 22.4.2010, p. 21.

4

---
----

**Exhibit 99.14**

**CONSENT OF GLENN R. CLARK**

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following reportand documents, which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated byreference into i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Gammon Gold Inc. (the“Company”) and ii) the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No.333-162371) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission:

|   | 1.     | Information relating to the mineral reserve and mineral resource    calculations for the El Cubo property;                                                                                                                                                         |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | 2.     | The technical report dated October 15, 2009 titled “El Cubo Gold Silver    Mine, Guanajuato, Mexico” (the “Guanajuato Report”); and                                                                                                            |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | 3.     | The annual information form of the Company dated March 23, 2011, which    includes reference to the undersigned’s name in connection with information    relating to the El Cubo property and the Guanajuato Report, and the    properties described therein. |

Date: March 23, 2011 

By: /s/ Glenn R. Clark                                                       Glenn R. Clark, P. Eng.President, Glenn R. Clark & Associates 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           165398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1417
<OTHER-SE>                                     (166815)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (11411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (11411)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)


</TABLE>
Robert L. CLARK, petitioner, v. GEORGIA SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

No. 17-6198.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000854663
<NAME> RMI TITANIUM
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             996   
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,457       
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,613     
<INVENTORY>                                     71,349      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,977       
<PP&E>                                         133,454       
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,286      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,614       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,061      
<BONDS>                                         67,950      
<COMMON>                                           159   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,647     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,614       
<SALES>                                        122,636       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,636  
<CGS>                                          121,808 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,736 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,640)       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   648    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,599     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,339 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,339       
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0       
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,339)        
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)     
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)      
        

</TABLE>
Saquawn HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5450.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Ahmad R. HUDSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6584.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# L_2013345EN.01002001.xml

| 19.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 345/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 345/20

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 151/2013

of 15 July 2013

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 19a (Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95) of Annex XXI to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘19aa. | 32013 R 0093: Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ L 33, 2.2.2013, p. 14).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘19aa.

32013 R 0093: Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 of 1 February 2013 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2494/95 concerning harmonised indices of consumer prices, as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices (OJ L 33, 2.2.2013, p. 14).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 93/2013 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 16 July 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 15 July 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Thórir IBSEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 33, 2.2.2013, p. 14.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2011313EN.01004501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 313/45 |

---

DECISION No 40/2011

of 14 November 2011

of the Joint Committee established under the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America related to the listing of Conformity Assessment Bodies under the Sectoral Annex on Electromagnetic Compatibility

(2011/763/EU)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America and in particular Articles 7 and 14;

Whereas the Joint Committee is to take a decision to list a Conformity Assessment Body or Bodies under a Sectoral Annex;

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 1. | The Conformity Assessment Bodies in Attachment A are added to the list of Conformity Assessment Bodies under the column ‘EC access to US market’ in Section V of the Sectoral Annex on Electromagnetic Compatibility. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 2. | The specific scope of listing, in terms of products and conformity assessment procedures, of the Conformity Assessment Bodies indicated in Attachment A has been agreed by the Parties and will be maintained by them. |

This Decision, done in duplicate, shall be signed by representatives of the Joint Committee who are authorised to act on behalf of the Parties for purposes of amending the Agreement. This Decision shall be effective from the date of the later of these signatures.

On behalf of the United States of America

James SANFORD

Signed in Washington DC on 8 November 2011

On behalf of the European Union

Fernando PERREAU DE PINNINCK

Signed in Brussels on 14 November 2011

---

Attachment A

EC Conformity Assessment Bodies added to the list of Conformity Assessment Bodies under the column ‘EC access to US market’ in Section V of the Sectoral Annex on Electromagnetic Compatibility

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | --- | | TÜV Rheinland-EPS BV | | Smidshornerweg 18 | | 9822 ZG Niekerk | | NETHERLANDS | |

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | --- | | Bicon Laboratories BV (BICON) | | Waterdijk 3A, 5705 CW Helmond | | PO box 118, 5700 AC Helmond | | NETHERLANDS | |

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | --- | | SIQ – Slovenian Institute of Quality and Metrology | | Tržaška cesta 2 | | SI-1000 Ljubljana | | SLOVENIA | |

---
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 12, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-2306

v. (D.C. No. CIV-05-692 LH/WDS)

DENNIS RAY JONES, (D. New Mex.)

Defendant-Appellant.

 

ORDER

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Appellant, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, was convicted of possession

with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

and 841(b)(1)(A). He appealed his conviction, which we affirmed in United

States v. Jones, No. 96-2061, 1998 WL 4355 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 1998). On

June 20, 2005, Appellant sought review before the district court to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On July 13, 2005, the district

court issued an order requiring Appellant to show why his § 2255 motion should

not be dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations.

The district court disagreed with Appellant’s response–that we had

authorized Appellant’s § 2255 motion or, alternatively, that the recent Supreme
-2-

Court decisions of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), made his motion timely. Memorandum

Opinion and Order, 1-2 (D.N.M. Oct. 19, 2005). The district court explained that

“[e]ven assuming for purposes of this order that Crawford and Booker recognize

new rights, these decision[s] have not been made retroactive on collateral review

of a criminal sentence.” Id. at 2 (citing Brown v. Uphoff, 381 F.3d 1219, 1227

(10th Cir. 2004)).

The issues Appellant raises on appeal are identical to those brought before

the district court. To grant a certificate of appealability, Appellant must make a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2) (1994). In order to meet this burden, Appellant must demonstrate

“that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the

petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation omitted).

We have carefully reviewed Appellant’s brief, the district court’s

disposition, and the record on appeal. Nothing in the facts, the record on appeal,

or Appellant’s filing raises an issue which meets our standard for the grant of a

certificate of appealability. For substantially the same reasons set forth by the

district court in its order of October 19, 2005, we cannot say “that reasonable
-3-

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should

have been resolved in a different manner.” Id. 

We DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
Antonio Mandell MORRIS, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-6573.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE, et al.

No. 16-1436.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

We granted certiorari in this case to resolve a challenge to "the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. **13,780** ." Because that provision of the Order "expired by its own terms" on September 24, 2017, the appeal no longer presents a "live case or controversy." *Burke v. Barnes,* 479 U.S. 361, 363, 107 S.Ct. 734, 93 L.Ed.2d 732 (1987). Following our established practice in such cases, the judgment is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss as moot the challenge to Executive Order No. **13,780** . *United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,* 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950). We express no view on the merits.

Justice SOTOMAYOR dissents from the order vacating the judgment below And would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                         93,414,000
<SECURITIES>                                   29,471,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,926,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    6,356,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,128,000
<PP&E>                                         5,391,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,367,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 177,792,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,142,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    3,500,000
<COMMON>                                       41,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,880,000<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   177,792,000
<SALES>                                        14,173,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,466,000
<CGS>                                          12,302,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  52,992,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,781,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,781,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,781,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>   Additional paid - in capital - $249,020,000
       Accumulated Deficit - $ (117,559,000)
       FAS 115 Securities Adjustment - $(218,000)
       Treasury Stock - $(2,363,000)
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### E. H. White and C. J. White, his wife, *Appellants,*v. Biscayne Trust Company, a Florida corporation, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 19, 1929.

*Huber Clements & Blackwell,*for Appellants;

*B. F. Burdine*and *Edward E. Fleming,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

TMs cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Giblin, Circuit Judge, concur.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 03/03/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       26,860
COMMITMENTS
   2,847    1,741    1,406   14,538   14,855   18,792   18,003    8,069    8,858

CHANGES FROM 02/24/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        140)
     472      129      277      -56     -386      693       20     -553      120

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.6      6.5      5.2     54.1     55.3     70.0     67.0     30.0     33.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       35)
       7        4        6       22       15       31       24
```

----

Updated March 5, 2009