alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01016101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/161 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/161

---

(2004/C 78 E/0165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact of the enlargement of Eivissa airport

Subject:

In Question E-0209/03 (1) of 21 January 2003 on the environmental impact of carrying out the scheme to enlarge Eivissa airport, I observed that this scheme would ... affect the special protection zone of the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park (Law 17/2001 of the Parlament de les Illes Balears).

1

Specifically, this would directly impact on the entire protected area, including major socio-economic impact from new occupation of lands and of privately owned houses, increased noise and air pollution affecting the dune systems of the Es Codolar area, which are registered as a predominantly conservation area, and impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the area is a Special Protection Area for Birds, under the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

2

Secondly, the enlargement of the boundaries of the airport's service area would mean directly occupying and remodelling land which lies within the boundaries of the natural park. The portion occupied is part of the extreme south-west of the dune system of the Es Codolar area, a zone registered as a conservation area, and protected by the EEC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (3)) as an ecosystem of Community interest. Furthermore, the enlargement involves a whole range of spatial planning changes in other areas bordering on the Ses Salines d'Eivissa i Formentera natural park and therefore once again impacting thereon.

3

Six months ago, in its answer of 14 March 2003, the Commission stated that it was investigating a complaint lodged in connection with the airport enlargement.

Has the Commission reached any solid conclusions as a result of the complaint lodged?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

As it stated in its answer to Written Question E-0209/03 from the Honourable Member, the Commission is currently investigating a complaint about the enlargement of Ibiza airport.

As part of its investigation of this complaint, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for full information about the project in question and for a copy of the project impact assessment carried out and the measures taken to comply with the obligations arising from Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (4).

4

The Commission is still waiting for a reply from the Spanish authorities to this letter.

This file will also be discussed with the Spanish authorities during a bilateral meeting in October 2003 to review certain complaints and infringements by Spain in the field of the environment.

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 163.

1

(2)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

3

(4)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

4

---
STATE v. Patricia Dawn ABSHIRE.

No. 459A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2008.

James N. Freeman, Jr., Elkin, for Abshire.

*725James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 666 S.E.2d 657.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of October 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of October 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,805,733
<SECURITIES>                                35,617,048
<RECEIVABLES>                              111,521,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                   708,469
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           151,653,102
<PP&E>                                       2,435,077
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,301,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,369,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      135,258,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,866
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,101,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,369,362
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,916,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,499,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,474,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               146,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (203,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (57,029)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (146,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (146,103)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 33 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1279/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners

Lack of medical care for Basque political prisoners shows how laws are not equally implemented in the Spanish Kingdom.

Bautista Barandalla's case is one of the clearest examples of that. This 38-year old Navarrian has been in prison for over 12 years. In 2000 he was diagnosed with ulcerous proctitis but he was not admitted into hospital until March 2002. From that time, 13 times he has had parts of his colon and rectum removed. He was always moved from hospital to prison too early. Given Barandalla's situation a request was made to the Criminal Court of Zaragoza for Barandalla's release under Article 92 of the Penal Code due to his sufferings and incurable illness. This request was repeated several times and all of them were refused in spite of additional reports from different doctors and hospitals that consider it absolutely necessary for Barandalla to be released.

Can the Commission say what steps it will take in a humanitarian bid to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Matters relating to the release of prisoners on health grounds are the responsibility of Member States.

Consequently, the Commission is not in a position to take any action under Community law in such cases.

----
STATE v. MIZELLE

No. COA07-970.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Beaufort (04CRS52697, 06CRS3925).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,190
<INVENTORY>                                     11,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,701
<PP&E>                                       2,510,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                 953,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,776,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          258,673
<BONDS>                                        785,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,003
<OTHER-SE>                                     699,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,776,643
<SALES>                                        141,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,548)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01073701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/737 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/737

---

(2004/C 78 E/0785)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2328/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Helicopter services to the Isles of Scilly

Subject:

Will the Commission ensure that the interpretation of the Lisi report ‘Compensation and assistance to air passengers’ will take into account the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes for technical and meteorological reasons, such as the above and similar routes? After all the intention of the report was to compensate passengers for the airlines that unreasonably inflict on passengers the cost of their failure to provide the resources to ensure passengers are not unnecessarily inconvenienced, and not to drive those that are giving a valuable and important public service on acknowledged difficult routes out of business.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

(9 September 2003)

The Commission recognises the particular conditions faced by air carriers, including helicopter operators, when operating some essential and difficult routes.

The draft Regulation ‘establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights (1)’ will shortly go through the conciliation procedure, and the Lisi report on ‘Compensation and assistance to air passengers’ does not address the situation of airlines that fly particularly difficult routes. However, the draft Regulation includes the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken’.

1

In particular, such circumstances may occur in cases of meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned and unexpected flight safety shortcomings. This concept is an efficient safeguard as, in such circumstances, carriers shall be exempted from certain obligations in event of cancellations and delays. It maintains a balance between passengers' rights and operational hazards for which operators can not be considered responsible.

Nevertheless, ‘a mechanical breakdown’ may not, by definition, always fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Operators having to guarantee quality and safety of service normally will have the responsibility to avoid such failure.

---

(1)  OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jermaine Earl HICKS.

No. 242P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Jermaine Earl Hicks, for Hicks, Jermaine Earl.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 11(b)



                              ELECTROSCOPE, INC.

               COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

          AND NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE - ASSUMING DILUTION
                                  (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
                                                               For the Nine Months Ended
                                                              ----------------------------
                                                              December 31,    December 31,
                                                                  1997            1996
                                                              ------------    ------------
<S>                                                           <C>             <C>
NET INCOME (LOSS)                                             $(2,742,188)    $(1,269,812)
                                                              -----------     -----------
                                                              -----------     -----------

SHARES USED IN SHARE COMPUTATION
  Common stock shares outstanding (weighted average)            5,375,488       4,893,979


  Treasury stock effect of common stock and
   equivalents issued within one year of the public
   offering at prices less than the public offering price             ---          56,364
                                                              -----------     -----------
   Shares used in computation                                   5,375,488       4,950,343
                                                              -----------     -----------
                                                              -----------     -----------

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE AND
 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE-
 ASSUMING DILUTION                                                 $(0.51)         $(0.26)
                                                                   ------          ------
                                                                   ------          ------
</TABLE>




                                             22
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 487 

To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify that kidney paired 

donations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of a human 

organ for valuable consideration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. BOND, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. DURBIN, 

Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify 

that kidney paired donations shall not be considered to 

involve the transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Living Kidney Organ 

5 Donation Clarification Act of 2007’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 487 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL ORGAN TRANS2 PLANT ACT. 

3 Section 301(a) of the National Organ Transplant Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 274e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: ‘‘For purposes of this section, kidney paired do6 nations shall not be considered to involve the transfer of 

7 a human organ for valuable consideration.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
DIXON v. HILL.

No. COA08-124.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Robeson (99CVS1058).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from GST
Funding's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 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>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                32,759,350
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,759,350
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             257,230,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,889,931
<BONDS>                                    265,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,659,790)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               257,230,142
<SALES>                                     28,979,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,979,456
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          36,102,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,122,712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,122,712)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,122,712)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ.

No. 302A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 15, 2015.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Jennifer Martin, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Patrick B. Weede, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Michael Silver, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2015 by Defendant for Hearing on Designation of Biological Evidence under N.C.G.S. Section 15A-268(a3) :

> *313"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of July 2015."
**Exhibit 99.13**

**CONSENT OF ANDY FORTIN, P.ENG.**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F, and any amendments and exhibits thereto, ofGoldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Annual Report”), I, Andy Fortin, P.Eng., consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical report dated 31 December, 2015,entitled “Éléonore Operations, Quebec, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Technical Report”), or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or was reviewed andapproved by me, (ii) the use of and references to my name, including as an expert or “qualified person”, in connection with the Annual Report and the Technical Report, and (iii) the information derived or summarized from the TechnicalReport that is included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report and any of the exhibits thereto. 

I also hereby consent to theincorporation by reference of such information contained in the Annual Report and exhibits thereto into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126039,333-126040,333-151243,333-151251,333-174376,333-181116,333-188805,333-195816 and 333-213153 on Form S-8,No. 333-207371 on Form F-3 and No. 333-211892 on Form F-10 of the Company. 

Date: March 16, 2017
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1


To the Board of Directors of
  Edison Mission Energy:

Re: Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2000.

Gentlemen/Ladies:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, as of March 31, 2000, Edison Mission Energy (the
Company) has changed its method for accounting for major maintenance costs from
the accrue in advance method of accounting to the expense as incurred method of
accounting. According to the management of the Company, while the accrue in
advance has been widely used by independent power producers as well as certain
other industries, this change was made to conform its policy to the recent
position taken by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
whereby the staff has stated that it does not believe the accrue in advance
method of accounting is appropriate.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the financial statements
of any period subsequent to December 31, 1999. Further, we have not examined and
do not express any opinion with respect to your financial statements for the
three months ended March 31, 2000.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Andersen LLP