alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004070EN.01015501.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/155

---

(2004/C 70 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Island flights — declaration of public service

Subject:

For many European citizens, air transport to the Balearic Islands means a holiday trip. For the inhabitants of the islands, however, it is a vital necessity, providing access to the mainland.

As laid down in Article 4 of EU Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1), ‘A Member State, following consultations with the other Member States concerned and after having informed the Commission and air carriers operating on the route, may impose a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services to an airport serving a peripheral or development region in its territory or on a thin route to any regional airport in its territory, any such route being considered vital for the economic development of the region in which the airport is located, to the extent necessary to ensure on that route adequate provision of scheduled air services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standards air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interest’.

1

Does the Commission believe there could be any impediment to the Spanish Government's agreeing to declare flights from the airports of Menorca, Eivissa and Palma to the Iberian Peninsula, as being flights of public interest?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

(11 November 2003)

The expediency of introducing public service obligations (PSOs), in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, is a matter for the Member State concerned. Pursuant to Article 4(3), the Commission cannot assess whether PSOs which have already been imposed are in conformity with the Regulation until it has examined the information supplied by the Member State concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Bryan M. Gil, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 634]

*1121Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), dated February 18, 2004, which, in effect; granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and the facts, and that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is denied.

“[P]rompt showup identifications which are conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime are not ‘presumptively infirm,’ and in fact have generally been allowed” *(People v Ortiz,*90 NY2d 533, 537 [1997], quoting *People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 543 [1991]). In this case, “the police had reasonable suspicion to pursue, stop, and detain the defendant based upon ... [a] broadcast which provided ... a general description [and based on] the close proximity of the defendant to the site of the crime, and the short passage of time between the crime [and the defendant’s stop]” *(People v Green,*10 AD3d 664 [2004]; *see People v Rodgers,*6 AD3d 464, 465 [2004]; *People v Holland,*4 AD3d 375 [2004]; *People v Hunt,*306 AD2d 497, 498 [2003] ). The defendant’s unusual behavior in running across the street and ducking down behind a tree or bushes added to the reasonable suspicion that justified the defendant’s detention pending the victim’s prompt “show-up” identification of him as one of the robbers.

The identification procedure in this case was not improper merely because the defendant was handcuffed at the time that he was displayed to the victim *(see e.g. People v Armstrong,*11 AD3d 721, 722 [2004]; *People v Robinson,*8 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2004] , *affd sub nom. People v Daniels, 5*NY3d 738 [2005]; *People v Pierre,*2 AD3d 461, 462 [2003]). Nor was the procedure improper merely because the victim had been told that the police had a suspect in custody *(see e.g. People v Tarangelo,*258 AD2d 305 [1999]; *People v Green,*256 AD2d 85 [1998]; *People v Stafford,*215 AD2d 212 [1995]). Crane, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
----

(2004/C 65 E/251)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2872/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Council

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Salvaging of the ferry Le Joola

A year ago, the ferry Le Joola sank off the coast of Senegal. 1 863 people were drowned, including dozens of Europeans. To this day, the ferry remains on the seabed together with the bodies of the victims. Despite lobbying by their families and friends and by the European Parliament, the ship has still not been salvaged. President Wade of Senegal recently agreed that he would cease to oppose its salvaging. However, there is no money to pay for it. It is very important to the families and friends of the dead that the ferry should be salvaged, so that they can take proper leave of their loved ones.

What has the Council done in the past year to promote the recovery of the bodies of these African and European citizens? Does not the European Union, and hence the Council, have a moral duty to coordinate the salvage operation in cooperation with Senegal? Will the Council do nothing to help the families and friends of the dead, and the dead themselves? What can the Council still do?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

Council Regulation 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning the provision of humanitarian aid does not cover the provision of aid to the families of the victims from the unfortunate sinking of the Le Joola, as recalled by Commissioner Nielsen in its response to the Written Parliamentary question E-3166/02 (15 January 2003).

The European Union has not been approached by the Senegalese authorities to help refloat the Joola. The EU has not extended any direct financial assistance to the victims and their families but it provides regular aid to Senegal from the European Development Fund. The European Investment Bank is considering providing a contribution (in co-operation with Germany) to the complete re-establishment of the maritime line between Dakar and Ziguinchor, interrupted due to the accident.

----
f10q0910ex10ii_covenantchina.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of October 28, 2010 by and between COVENANT GROUP OF CHINA INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Maker"), and SUI GENERIS CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Payee" and, collectively with Maker, the “Parties”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.           On April 22, 2010, Maker and Payee executed a Promissory Note, whereby Maker promised to repay the principal sum of $120,000 in connection with a Bridge Loan Agreement entered into by the Parties of even date (the "Original Note").


 


B.           On June 30, 2010 Maker and Payee sought to amend the Original Note and entered into a First Amendment to Promissory Note (“First Amendment”).


 


C.           On August 30, 2010 Maker and Payee sought to amend the Original Note and entered into a Second Amendment to Promissory Note (“Second Amendment”).


 


D.           Maker and Payee now desire to amend the Original Note as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


1. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original Note.


 


2. The second paragraph of the Original Note, as amended by the Second Amendment, reading, “The entire principal balance will be payable in full three (3) months from August 13, 2010[,]” is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“The entire principal balance will be payable in full four (4) months from October 28, 2010.”







3. Except as expressly modified in this Amendment, all of the remaining terms and conditions of the Original Note and the First Amendment shall continue in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.


 


[signature page follows]


 


 


 


 




  





  











  






 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the date first written above.


 







COVENANT GROUP OF CHINA INC.







By:         /s/ Justin D. Csik                                                                   


Justin D. Csik, CFO and General Counsel












SUI GENERIS CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC







By:         /s/ Robert Benedict                                                                   


Robert Benedict, Managing Member
Commencement Date Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.60

  
 COMMENCEMENT DATE AGREEMENT

  
 AGREEMENT made this 12th day of March, 2009,
by and between Normandy Concord Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as “Landlord”), and Kayak Software Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Tenant”).

  
 WITNESSETH: 

 
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into a certain
Office Lease Agreement dated as of September 26, 2008 (the “Lease”) for 14,397 rentable square feet on the third floor of the Building located at 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA; and 

 
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to memorialize the
Commencement Date and certain other terms of the Lease. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 	    All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein have the meaning given in the Lease. 


 

	 	2.	 	    Notwithstanding any provision of the Lease to the contrary: 


 

	 	(i)	The Commencement Date is deemed to be February 20, 2009; and 


 

	 	(ii)	The Rent Commencement Date* is deemed to be February 20, 2009; and 


 

	 	(iii)	The Termination Date shall be February 29, 2016. 

  

* Tenant shall only be obligated to pay Base Rent on 10,000 rentable square feet for the initial six (6) months of the Lease Term.

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	TENANT:	 	LANDLORD:	 	
			
	Kayak Software Corporation	 	Normandy Concord Acquisition, LLC	 	
	BY:	 	   /s/ Paul Schwenk
	 	By:	 	   /s/ Raymond P. Trevisan
	 	
	Name:	 	   Paul Schwenk
	 	Name:	 	   Raymond P. Trevisan
	 	
	Title:	 	   SVP Engineering
	 	Title:	 	   Vice President
	 	
	Date:	 	   4/15/09
LOGO

EXHIBIT 99.22

CONSENT OF HUGO MIRANDA

In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 40-F, and any amendments and exhibits thereto, of Goldcorp Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (collectively, the Annual Report),
I, Hugo Miranda, consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical Report dated March 24, 2014, entitled Technical report on the Pueblo Viejo Project, Sanchez Ramirez Province, Dominican Republic (the Technical
Report), or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparation of and/or was reviewed and approved 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 Technical Report that is included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report and any of the exhibits thereto.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation 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.

Dated this 16th day of March, 2017



|       |  |                              
|------ |  | -----------------------------
|       |  | (Signed)Hugo Miranda       
|Name:  |  | Hugo Miranda, MBA, P.C.      
|Title: |  | Principal Mining Engineer    
|       |  | Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.





RPA Inc. 55 University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T +1 (416) 947
0907 www.rpacan.com
#### Timothy Sheridan, Appellant, v Town of Orangetown, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 575]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (O’Rourke, J.), dated April 9, 2004, as, in effect, granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; *Roth v Goldman,*254 AD2d 405 [1998]). Here, the plaintiff, a retired police officer *366who previously was employed by the defendant, commenced this action following the defendant’s termination of certain benefits. The documentary evidence established, however, that the plaintiff’s claim was governed by a collective bargaining agreement and he failed to pursue the grievance procedure contained therein and exhaust his administrative remedies *(see Manfro v McGivney,*11 AD3d 662 [2004]; *Matter of O’Connor v Police Commn. of Town of Clarkstown,*301 AD2d 654 [2003]; *Formica v Town of Huntington,*295 AD2d 400 [2002]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/381Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/381 of 17 February 2015 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of            the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (EUPOL COPPS/1/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/381                     

# of 17 February 2015

# on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)                        (EUPOL COPPS/1/2015)                     

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/354/CFSP of 3 July 2013 on the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories,                           EUPOL COPPS(1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Council Decision 2013/354/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article                              38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of                              the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS), including the decision to appoint a Head                              of Mission.

(2)On 5 February 2015, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Mr Rodolphe                              MAUGET as Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS from 16 February 2015 to 30 June 2015.

(3)Council Decision 2014/447/CFSP(2) extended the duration of EUPOL COPPS until 30 June 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Mr Rodolphe MAUGET is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS for the period from 16 February 2015 to 30 June 2015.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 16 February 2015.

Done at Brussels, 17 February 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 185, 4.7.2013, p. 12.                           

2

Council Decision 2014/447/CFSP of 9 July 2014 amending Council Decision 2013/354/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission                              for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS) (OJ L 201, 10.7.2014, p. 28).
IN RE I.N.B.

No. COA08-536.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Robeson (07JA8, 07JA9, 07JA10, 07JA240).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Grunley/Goel JV, LLC ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W912DR-11-C-0027 ) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59356 

Robert J. Symon, Esq. 

Aron C. Beezley, Esq. 

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP 

Washington, DC 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Veronica L. Norman, Esq. 

Assistant District Counsel 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 21 August 2014 

~~~~--- /~ ~/ MARK N. STEMPI.: R 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59356, Appeal of Grunley/Goel JV, 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
Second Department,

August, 2005

(August 1, 2005)

#### Carmela Bevilacqua, Respondent, v City of New York, Respondent, Thomas C. Reitz, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[798 NYS2d 909]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Thomas C. Reitz, Jr., and Albert W. Marini, Jr., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 13, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs- to the plaintiff-respondent.

The appellants’ summary judgment motion was made more than 60 days after the plaintiff filed a note of issue on February 4, 2004, in violation of rule 13 of the Uniform Civil Trial Rules of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The appellants failed to establish good cause for the delay *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]; *Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*3 NY3d 725 [2004]; *Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648, 652 [2004]; *First Union Auto Fin., Inc. v Donat,*16 AD3d 372 [2005]; *Breiding v Giladi,*15 AD3d 435 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not consider the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# CE2004088EN.01038301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/383 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/383

---

(2004/C 88 E/0389)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2131/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 June 2003)

Subject:   Re-opening of mineral extraction plant at Pergamon (Bergama)

Subject:

The re-opening of Eurogold's gold extraction plant in the Pergamon area of Turkey, opposite the island of Lesbos, is a danger to the ecosystem and public health in the region. Data compiled by experts show that 6,8 tonnes of gold and 8,5 tonnes of silver were produced in 2002 and that these were extracted using 25 tonnes of cyanide. This quantity of toxic waste is stored at a distance of only 25 kilometres from the shores of the Greek island of Lesbos and the town of Mytilini, while a storage basin for toxic waste and cyanide salts has been set up near the village of Ovacik. Given the high level of seismic activity in the area and the possibility of a leakage of toxic cyanide waste into the water table and the Aegean as the result of a major earthquake, the potential consequences are catastrophic.

In view of the fact that Parliament has already adopted a resolution condemning activities of this kind (B4-0410/94) (1), will the Commission ask Turkey for information on the above matter, in the context of that country's efforts to forge closer links with Europe, and take the necessary measures to avoid far-reaching environmental damage in both Greece and Turkey?

1

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

(7 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. The activities of the companies involved in mineral extraction in Bergama have been subject to a judgement of the Izmir Administrative Court of 10 January 2002. In accordance with the principle of the rule of law, which is part of the Copenhagen criteria, the Turkish Authorities are expected to fully abide by decisions of the judiciary. Mining activities such as those mentioned by the Honourable Member may have potentially serious implications for the protection of the environment and human health if they are not carried out properly. As part of its preparations for accession, Turkey undertakes to adopt and implement the ‘acquis’ in due course.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation closely in light of the relevant political and ‘acquis’ criteria.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 5.12.1994, p. 169.

1

---
STATE v. Charles Edward HUMPHRIES, Jr.

No. 256P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Charles Edward Humphries, Jr., Hillsborough, for Humphries, Charles Edward (Jr.).

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

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of July 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# CE2004088EN.01040001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/400 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/400

---

(2004/C 88 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2310/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2003)

Subject:   EU nationals imprisoned in Japan

Subject:

Given that it has the right to attend the monthly meetings of the EU Consular officials, can the Commission supply details of how many EU nationals, broken down into numbers from each EU Member State, are currently in prisons in Japan?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

(24 July 2003)

The Commission Delegation in Tokyo participates in Union co-ordination meetings on consular affairs only in so far as the Commission is specifically competent for the matters under discussion. Prison visits and care of Member State citizens in need of consular help do not fall within the remit of the Commission Delegation. However, during discussions at the consulate meeting the latest figure mentioned for Western prisoners in Tokyo alone was 100. Precise data is difficult to obtain, particularly if Union citizens are arrested and held in local prefectures. (In some cases this also involves a different interpretation of nationality as for instance the United Kingdom Embassy does not accept Hong Kong citizens to be considered as Chinese nationals by the Japanese authorities). The highest proportion of cases concern the violation of drug related laws. The Commission is not in a position, therefore, to give a more detailed breakdown in terms of numbers from each Member State. This information should be sought from the Member States themselves.

---