alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James W. Crawford, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 93]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 14, 2004, which, inter alia, ruled that *1207claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a machine operator after he failed to complete measurements on a corrugating machine and caused the mass production of scored cardboard that was not made to specifications. He thereafter applied for regular unemployment insurance benefits, as well as additional benefits for career training under Labor Law § 599, which were denied. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving such benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals and we affirm.

It is well settled that a claimant’s failure to abide by the employer’s workplace rules may constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Wise [Commissioner of Labor],*19 AD3d 795 [2005]). Here, the record reveals that claimant ignored the employer’s established procedures regarding the operation of the corrugating machine and that he had been warned in connection with a prior similar infraction. Inasmuch as claimant’s lapse was detrimental to the employer’s interests and resulted in a financial loss, the Board’s finding that claimant’s conduct disqualified him from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence. Claimant’s contention that he was not solely responsible for the machine’s proper operation created a credibility issue that the Board was entitled to resolve against him *(see Matter of Ghoulian [Commissioner of Labor],*6 AD3d 908, 909 [2004]). Moreover, inasmuch as claimant was ineligible to receive regular unemployment insurance benefits under these circumstances, he is not eligible for additional benefits for career and related training under Labor Law § 599. Accordingly, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
STATE v. Rahul Rumar MACK.

No. 258P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Douglas W. Corkhill, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rahul Rumar Mack, Lumberton, for Mack, Rahul Rumar.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of July 2015 by *70Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."

ERVIN, J., recused.
Order entered April 9, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 00958
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF I .L.S., A CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 09
- 7655


### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s April 7, 2014 motion for substantial briefing compliance
relief with respect to his amended brief. The Court filed appellant’s amended brief on April 7, 2014. Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion as moot. Appellee’s brief is due May 7, 2014.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1965Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1965 of 27 October 2015 on the acceptance of Switzerland's Contribution            for the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM Ukraine/4/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1965                     

# of 27 October 2015

# on the acceptance of Switzerland's Contribution for the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform                        Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine) (EUAM Ukraine/4/2015)                     

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 2014/486/CFSP of 22 July 2014 on the European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security                           Sector Reform Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine)(1),                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2014/486/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to                              take relevant decisions on the acceptance of the proposed contributions to EUAM Ukraine by third States.

(2)The Civilian Operations Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contribution from Switzerland to EUAM Ukraine                              and consider the contribution as significant.

(3)Switzerland should be exempted from financial contributions to the operational budget of EUAM Ukraine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

## Article 1U.K.Third States' contributions

1.The contribution from Switzerland to EUAM Ukraine is accepted and is considered to be significant.                  

2.Switzerland is exempted from financial contributions to the operational budget of EUAM Ukraine.                  

## Article 2U.K.Entry into force

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

Done at Brussels, 27 October 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 217, 23.7.2014, p. 42.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Company's
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,033                       0
<SECURITIES>                                    46,857                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,846                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       860                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,009                       0
<PP&E>                                          14,159                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,010                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,631                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,733                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            14                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,884                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,898                       0
<SALES>                                         12,007                  23,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,310                  32,347
<CGS>                                              411                     797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,322                   6,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,373                  23,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    31                    (146)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  11                      33
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,167                   3,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                       720                   1,322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,447                   2,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,447                   2,564
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10                    0.17
        

</TABLE>
SNYDER v. DUNCAN.

No. COA07-106.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Mitchell (05SP15).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01048801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/488 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/488

---

(2004/C 84 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2413/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Funding for children's choral exchanges

Subject:

Can the Commission advise of the possible avenues for securing financial support at European level for travel expenses incurred by a primary school (maximum age 13) participating in a choral exchange between EU Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2003)

(27 August 2003)

European funding for cooperation in the field of school education is provided by the Comenius actions of the Socrates Programme.

Comenius School Projects offer a framework in which pupils and school education staff from the 30 countries currently participating in Socrates can work together on a theme of common interest, including for example music. Financing may be provided both for local project activities and for the costs of mobility to visit partner schools. Funding for class exchanges (i.e. for the mobility of more than three or four pupils) is however available only in the framework of Comenius Language Projects, in which the current minimum participation age is 14 years.

All of these school partnership projects are managed in a decentralised way by a Socrates National Agency in each participating country, and any school interested in applying for Comenius funding should contact its own Agency for information. Contact details are available on the following Europa website: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/nat-est_en.html).

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Jamerson, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 806]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered October 9, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s refusal to redact an audiotape of the 911 call containing a statement that the defendant allegedly made to the complainant during the course of the robbery and the complainant’s testimony about a similar statement *(cf. generally People v Resek,*3 NY3d 385, 388-389 [2004]). The probative value of the statements attributed to the defendant, “I just got out” and “I was locked up,” outweighed any prejudice to the defendant. These statements, made by the defendant during the commission of the charged crime, were relevant to the People’s case because the defense argued that the defendant’s conduct had not been threatening and that the complainant had simply overreacted *(see People v Resek, supra*at 390). Furthermore, the prosecutor did not draw the jury’s attention to this evidence and made no effort to draw a negative inference from the defendant’s statements *(cf. People v Dunn,*26 AD2d 381, 382 [1966]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to preclude these statements. Prudenti, P.J., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,920
<PP&E>                                         195,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           483
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,558
<SALES>                                        211,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,970
<CGS>                                          197,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,594)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
Amy Pharr ELAM, Elizabeth F. Bailey, and Reid T. Deramus v. WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT, INC. and Charlotte House Association of Unit Owners, Inc.

No. 216P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kenneth T. Davies, for Elam, Amy Pharr, et al.

M. Aaron Lay, Charlotte, for William Douglas Managment, Inc.

Lori Gilmore, Raleigh, for Charlotte House Association of Unit Owners, Inc.

Erik M. Rosenwood, Charlotte, for Elam, Amy Pharr, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of June 2015 by Plaintiffs 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 *558was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 21st of July 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 15th of December 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
July 11, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

AMERICAN REALTY ASSO CIATES, LLC , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00510

- CV V.

EDGAR RODRIGUEZ AND SARA ANN RODRIGUEZ , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 7, 2013 . Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appea l DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, American Realty Associates, LLC. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-68283 and 333-135210) and Form S-8 (No. 333-100214) of AMB Property, L.P. and Form S-8 (Nos.333-42015, 333-78779, 333-90042 and 333-144489) of AMB Property Corporation of our report datedFebruary 29, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**EXHIBIT 29****CONSENT OF D. CRICK**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated November 17, 2006, entitled “The Red Lake Gold MinesProperty, Red Lake Mining Division, Northern Ontario” (the “Red Lake Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ D. Crick
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 16.1

                                       [LOGO]

                         Nelson, Mayoka & Company, P.C.

                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                                551 5(TH) Avenue
                               New York, New York
                                   10176-0001

                                    -------

                              Tel. (212) 697-7979
                               Fax (212) 697-8997
                                  DIRECT LINE

                                          August 2, 1999

Board of Directors
On2.com, Inc.
375 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10013

We would like to inform you that we resign as the auditors of On2.com, Inc. as
of July 27, 1999. We agree that the reference to us that you have included in
the Current Report on form 8-K that you propose to file on August 2, 1999.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          /s/ NELSON, MAYOKA & CO.
                                          --------------------------------------

                                          Nelson, Mayoka & Co.
STATE v. William Earl ASKEW.

No. 133P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

John Green, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William Earl Askew, for Askew, William Earl.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of April 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> *866"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# CE2004088EN.01029001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/290 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/290

---

(2004/C 88 E/0297)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2280/02

by Emilia Müller (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2002)

Subject:   Relaxing of the ban on the use of bonemeal in animal feed

Subject:

What is the exact quantity of old stocks of bonemeal in the EU and how are they distributed among the individual Member States and their regions?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

(25 September 2002)

In March 2001 the Commission carried out a questionnaire survey asking for details of disposal routes, amounts of animal by-products (ABP) disposed of via each route, and costs. The survey was carried out in order to monitor the level of increase in ABP, and its impact in particular on the storage and disposal capacities of processed animal proteins (PAP), including meat-and-bone meal in Member States. Among other things, the survey revealed the following stocks of PAP at that time:

| (Tonnes) |
| --- |
| Member States | Estimated amount of PAP stored in March 2001 |
| Belgium | 14 000 |
| Denmark | 56 000 |
| Germany | 27 453 |
| Greece | 5 000 |
| Spain | 4 194 |
| France | 200 000 |
| Ireland | 100 000 |
| Italy | 30 000 |
| Luxembourg | 0 |
| The Netherlands | 75 000 |
| Austria | <1 000 |
| Portugal | 83 617 |
| Finland | 10 000 |
| Sweden | 12 600 |
| United Kingdom | 436 000 |

(Tonnes)

Member States

Estimated amount of PAP stored in March 2001

Belgium

14 000

Denmark

56 000

Germany

27 453

Greece

5 000

Spain

4 194

France

200 000

Ireland

100 000

Italy

30 000

Luxembourg

0

The Netherlands

75 000

Austria

<1 000

Portugal

83 617

Finland

10 000

Sweden

12 600

United Kingdom

436 000

Luxembourg sends all his ABP to Belgium for rendering and therefore, has no stocks of PAP. Four Member States (Greece, France, the Netherlands and Portugal) and two Federal States in Germany (Baden-Württemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania) indicated a shortage of storage capacity.

Recently, the Commission sent again a request for information to Member States. In particular, each Member State was asked to submit formal plans on the manner in which stocks of meat-and-bone meal are currently being handled, transported and stored and the plans for their disposal. The data was requested for 30 August 2002. The Commission intends in due course to report on the responses to this questionnaire and its implications.

---
COLLINS v. CITATION FOUNDRY.

No. COA08-786.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 545137).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
McLAUGHLIN, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.

No. 163A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 2, 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., Kinston, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

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

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, for North Carolina Sheriffs' Association.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of October 2015 by North Carolina Sheriffs' Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of November 2015."

ERVIN, J. Recused.

Unless already submitted, the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association's Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed *78and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
In the Matter of: B.G., E.G., E.G.

No. COA15-434.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
STATE v. Terence D. SMITH.

No. 270P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Terence D. Smith, Norlina, for Smith, Terence D.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of July 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."