alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      186,953
<SECURITIES>                                11,663,513
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,546,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,397,189
<PP&E>                                      1,834,817
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,053,821)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,178,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,602,852
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  9,575,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,178,185
<SALES>                                     7,228,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7,228,943
<CGS>                                       4,587,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               4,587,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,127,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          53,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,461,621
<INCOME-TAX>                                466,182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                995,439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.34
        




</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01002801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/28

---

(2004/C 84 E/0030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject:   Investment

Subject:

Further to the Commission's very interesting answer to my question E-1350/03 (1) on 22 May 2003 concerning foreign direct investment into the eurozone countries and the non-eurozone EU Member States, is the Commission now in a position to update those figures given in its tables to include last year (2002)? If not, when will it be able to do so?

1

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

(3 September 2003)

Updated tables are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The data for 2002 are preliminary estimates sent by Member States to Eurostat in June 2003 together with revised 2001 data. For Denmark and Spain, data exclude reinvested earnings. For Greece and Sweden, data exclude reinvested earnings in some cases. Aggregates include estimated reinvested earnings in all these cases. Preliminary data for 2002 and revised data for 2001 are not available for partner ‘Eurozone countries’.

---

(1)  See page 8.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Bryan Keith HESS.

No. 465PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, for Hess.

Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorney General, William D. Kenerly, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 913.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 24th day of September 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of September 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WESTERN
WIRELESS CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF
AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          16,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,229
<INVENTORY>                                      7,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,327
<PP&E>                                         698,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                 301,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,383,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,165
<BONDS>                                      1,480,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       690,298
<OTHER-SE>                                   (876,177)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,383,292
<SALES>                                          6,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               159,311
<CGS>                                           18,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (31,385)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,605
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,132
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,132
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.32****CONSENT OF D. T. WELLS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following documents, which arebeing filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission: 1. The technical report dated January 2003 entitled “Technical Report on Mining &Processing Assets of Peak Gold Mines, in New South Wales, Australia & Minera AlumbreraLimited in Argentina” (the “Alumbrera Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Alumbrera Report,and the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008        Name: David T. Wells, C. Eng.    Title: Senior Metallurgist
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51309 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SABINO MALDONADO-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1281-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sabino Maldonado-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Maldonado contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Maldonado maintains that he pleadedNo. 02-51309 -2- guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Maldonado acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
----

(2004/C 33 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Large-scale hunting of migratory birds in Malta

We recently received a report that in Malta the spring migration of birds culminated in large-scale hunting of protected migratory species, even in protected areas. In its answer to Written Question E-3036/02 (1), the Commission stated that when it joins the Union Malta will be required to transpose and comply with all the provisions of the bird protection directive. The Commission also made clear that the situation in countries joining the Union with regard to compliance with and transposition of the bird protection and habitats directive will be monitored closely.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission does not have confirmation of the claims of large-scale hunting made by the Honourable Members and therefore is unable to comment as to whether these claims run counter to the obligations of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2).

The obligations of the Birds Directive have been underlined by the Commission in its contacts with Malta on numerous occasions and the Commission will continue to monitor Malta's compliance with the commitments it has given in the run-up to accession. The Commission would also refer to its previous response to Written Question E-3036/02 by Mrs Corbey.

Under the current jurisdiction, the Birds Directive would not demand an automatic blanket ban of the activities.

----

(1)OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 40.

(2)OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2021

NO. 03-19-00070-CV

Vergo Patio Gardens, Inc., Appellant

v.

Railroad Commission of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 19, 2018. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the trial court’s judgment affirming the Commission’s order. Therefore, the judgment of the trial

court affirming the Commission’s order is reversed, the Commission’s order is reversed, and the 

cause is remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s 

opinion. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW GOLDEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:06-cr-00319-CMC-1; 3:08-cv-70019-CMC)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Golden, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Golden seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Golden 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
----

(2004/C 70 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3084/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Sit-in of Basque political prisoners

In the Basque Country, an unquestionable political conflict exists because the Basque people are being denied their democratic rights. The outlawing of ideas and political projects has brought only greater confrontation and more suffering.

The community of almost 700 hundred Basque political prisoners have been holding a sit-in, in the prisons of the Spanish Kingdom and the French Republic, since 27 September in defence of their rights. They have rejected visits from friends and relatives. As a matter of fact, journeys are so long that visits are impossible, and 13 people have already died on the way to or from the prisons.

The Spanish Government ignores every call to put an end to these sufferings, and the Spanish courts do not dare to insist on the democratic principle of the separation of powers.

On 4 September 2003, the European Parliament adopted a Report on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the EU (2002) (A5-0281/2003), where much emphasis is given to the mobilisation of European capacity to put an end to these intolerable abuses of prisoners.

Can the Commission table a proposal to the European Parliament so that this issue may be tackled as a matter of urgency?

Would the Commission support the involvement of Basque prisoners in a bid to find a solution to the ongoing conflict in the Basque Country?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission takes the view that none of the powers conferred on it by the European Union and Community Treaties would allow it to take the action requested by the Honourable Member.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Linwood Earl STEPHENS, Defendant.

No. COA15-571.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016. LINWOOD EARL STEPHENS, Defendant.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Forms S-3 (No.  333-109355) of our report dated January 22, 2004 on
our audits of the consolidated  financial  statements of On2 Technologies,  Inc.
and subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, included in the
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB.  We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in the Registration Statement.


/s/ EISNER LLP

Eisner LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2004
# CE2004084EN.01070701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/707

---

(2004/C 84 E/0793)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3821/02

by Elena Padotti (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Violation of asylum rights in the EU

Subject:

On 28 November 2002 the Italian authorities repatriated Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family, from Malpensa airport (Milan) to Syria, despite the existence of a death sentence against him in that country. This act was in breach of the Italian Constitution.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘no-one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed’ (Article 2), and also underwrites the right of asylum on the basis of the Geneva Convention and the protocol of 31 January 1967 (Article 18). Meanwhile, negotiations are currently in course between the EU and Syria for an association agreement.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to intervene as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the death sentence is not carried out and that the physical integrity of Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family is not put at risk?

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.W., The Father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD 

LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-3316

[February 14, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Yael Gamm, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18-1694 CJ DP.

Lori D. Shelby, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Department of Children 

and Families. 

Nancy Gregoire of Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort 

Lauderdale, and Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director Guardian Ad Litem 

Office, Tallahassee for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
McLAUGHLIN, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 163A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for McLaughlin, Ivan, et al.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for McLaughlin, Ivan, et al.

Sean F. Perrin, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

William G. Simpson, Jr., Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jon Ward, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2015 by N.C. Advocates for Justice for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of October 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).

ERVIN, J. recused.
Marcus Larent HENDERSON v. HARNETT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, Jacqualyn L. Lee.

No. 418P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Marcus LaRent Henderson, for Henderson, Marcus LaRent.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 14th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Harnett County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
STATE v. Napoleon Junior RANKIN.

No. 40P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Napoleon J. Rankin, Spruce Pines, for Rankins, Napoleon Junior.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2015 by Defendant-Appellant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
CLINE v. OWENS.

No. COA07-1354.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Rowan (06CVS1947).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

GUSTAVE J. LABARRE, JR., ET NO. 

### 2022 CW 0189 AL VERSUS 

### OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL 

### APRIL 8, 2022

In Re: Texas Brine 

## Company, LLC, applying 

### for supervisory writs, 

### 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption, No. 

### 33796.
BEFORE: WELCH, THERIOT, 

## AND PENZATOI JJ.

WRIT DENIED. MRT AHP Welch, J., 

### dissents and would grant the writ. The case management order 

### issued 

## by the 

### district court applicable to this trial specifies that 

### the trial 

### is regarding the claims of Texas Brine 

## Company, LLC 

### for attorney's fees and costs against certain 

### insurers " as alleged 

### pre -2012 insurers of Texas Brine". Amounts paid 

## byZurichAmericanInsuranceCompanyandAmericanGuarantee Liability & Insurance 

## Company pursuant to 

### insurance policies 

### in effect between March 

### 2012 and March 

### 2013 are not relevant to the claims at 

### issue in the trial scheduled 

### on April 

### 20, 2022. 

## Accordingly, I would grant the motion 

### in limine filed 

## by Texas Brine 

## Company, LLC and exclude evidence of payments 

## by Zurich American Insurance 

## Company and American Guarantee 

## Liability & Insurance 

## Company to Texas Brine 

## Company, LLC pursuant to 

### insurance policies 

### in 

### effectbetween March 2012 and March 2013.

COURT OFAPPEAL, 

### FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY ERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Paul FRAMPTON v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL.

No. 248P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Barry Nakell, for Frampton, Paul.

Kimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorney General, for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Respondent-Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."