alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 27, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-14974

________________________

D. C. Docket Nos. 

07-01455-CV-WSD-1

05-12515-BKC-CR

In Re: ALLIED HOLDING, INC., 

Debtor. 

 

VIRTUS CAPITAL LP, 

HAWK OPPORTUNITY FUND, L.P., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

versus 

ALLIED HOLDING, INC., 

TEAMSTERS NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTATION

INDUSTRY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, 

YUCAIPA AMERICAN ALLIANCE FUND I, LP, 

YUCAIPA TRANSPORT, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees. 
 Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern *

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(August 27, 2008) 

Before WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, District *

Judge. 

PER CURIAM:

Allied Holding filed for voluntary bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 301, on July 31, 2005. Virtus Capital and Hawk

Opportunity Fund are shareholders of Allied, whose shares were deemed worthless

by Allied’s Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). 

The bankruptcy court confirmed the Plan on May 18, 2007. Three days

later, Virtus and Hawk appealed the bankruptcy court’s order to the district court. 

They did not seek a stay with the bankruptcy court until June 25, 2007. The stay

was denied, and Virtus and Hawk failed to request a stay with the district court. 

On September 29, 2007, the district court dismissed their appeal as equitably moot,

finding that the Plan had been “substantially consummated” and that third parties

had acted in substantial reliance on it. Upon careful review of the record and the
3

parties’ briefs, and after hearing oral argument, we affirm. 

Considering all the circumstances, we agree with the district court that the

Plan has been so substantially consummated that effective relief is no longer

available. Several major transactions have already been executed pursuant to the

Plan. If Virtus and Hawk were granted cash or shares in the reorganized Allied, or

if the Plan’s release provision were invalidated, such relief would undermine the

reasonable expectations of the stockholders and creditors who carefully negotiated

and relied on the deal struck by the Plan. Accordingly, Virtus and Hawk’s appeal

is equitably moot. See In re Club Assocs., 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JAIME LUEVANO,

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00253-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Jaime Luevano, has filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of mandamus

compelling the Hon. Kathleen H. Olivares, Judge of the 205th Judicial District Court of El Paso

County, to grant a number of motions and “special procedures” regarding Relator’s prosecution

for burglary of a habitation.

Relief by writ of mandamus will only granted in extraordinary circumstances where the

Relator is able to establish the trial court has clearly abused its discretion, and no adequate

remedy at law exists. See State ex. rel Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at

Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). Based on the petition and record

before us, we are unable to conclude that Relator is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly,

mandamus relief is denied. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.3.

August 26, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice
Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                           2,405
<SECURITIES>                                    18,808
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,869
<PP&E>                                          32,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,553)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,372
<OTHER-SE>                                     (69,692)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,215
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.18**

**CONSENT OF MARINUS ANDRE (ANDRE) DE RUIJTER, 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, Marinus Andre (Andre) de Ruijter, P.Eng., consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical report dated 31December, 2015, entitled “Peñasquito Polymetallic Operation, Zacatecas State, Mexico, NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Technical Report”), or portions thereof, that was prepared byme, 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 intoRegistration Statement Nos. 333-126039,333-126040,333-151243,333-151251,333-174376,333-181116,333-188805,333-195816 and333-213153 on Form S-8,No. 333-207371 on Form F-3 and No. 333-211892 on Form F-10 of the Company. 

Date: March16, 2017
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00081

- CR

BRIAN WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11F0303

- 5

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian Williams has filed several notices of ap peal in connection with his pro se filings of

pretrial habeas applications with the trial court. The trial is now complete, with his plea of guilty

pursuant to a plea agreement. On May 16, we sent a letter to Williams in connection with his

attempted a ppeals, stating that there was no order or judgment appearing in the records from

which an appeal could be taken, requesting that he show this Court how we could have

jurisdiction over his appeals, and warning him that in the absence of some such showing, his

appeals would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P 25.2(a).

Williams has filed a response in which he claims that the court denied his pretrial habeas

applications on April 21, 2014. We have again reviewed the record and find no such order.

Further, we have contacted the district clerk, who has informed us that no such order exists.

We dismiss t he appeal for want of jurisdiction

.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: June 4 , 2014

Date Decided: June 5

, 2014

Do Not Publish
#### Raymond Giovanniello, Appellant, v Hispanic Media Group USA, Inc., Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 800]

In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated May 27, 2004, as, upon granting the defendant’s motion for a protective order, in effect, struck the class action allegations and associated class action relief from the complaint and transferred the resulting individual action to the Nassau County District Court.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof transferring the action to the Nassau County District Court; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the defendant.

For the reasons set forth in *Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour & Travel, Inc. (22*AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained in this case *(see*CPLR 901 [b]).

Nevertheless, because the equitable relief sought by the plaintiff in his individual capacity is not within the limited jurisdiction of the Nassau County District Court *(see*Uniform District Court Act §§ 202, 209 [b]; CPLR 325 [d]; *Palmieri v C.J. Meat Ctr., 2*Misc 3d 127[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51683[U]), the action should not have been transferred to that court. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur. *[See*4 Misc 3d 440 (2004).]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7286

SAMUEL A. MOATS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden; EVELYN SEIFERT, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00014-FPS)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 2, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel A. Moats, Appellant Pro Se. Colleen Anne Ford, Robert David

Goldberg, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Samuel A. Moats seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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 Moats

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
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit 10.34

    


    


    Loan Agreement

    (English
Translation)

    


    


    
      	
              Lender (Party
      A):

            	
              Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical
      Co., Ltd.

            


    

    
      	
              Borrower (Party
      B):

            	
              Jilin Province Dingjian Natural
      Plant Base Company Limited

            


    

    


    The lender (Party A) and borrower (Party B) are entering into this loan agreement
providing for a loan from Party A to Party B on the following terms which have
been reached through negotiation:

    


    (1)           Principal Amount:  Party B will borrow RMB 13,300,000 from Party A.  

    


    (2)           Term: The term of the loan shall be
4 months, commencing from the day following
funding of the loan by Party A, from July 22, 2010 to November 30, 2010.  Within the
term, interest will be charged on the
principal amount borrowed based on the applicable bank short-term interest rate of
4.86%.  Interest will be due and payable together with the principal amount, on the maturity date of November 30, 2010.

    


    (3)           Guarantee:  Party B must repay the principal and accrued interest under the loan to Party A on the due date.
 Penalty interest shall accrue to Party A if repayment is not made on or before the
above agreed maturity date.

    


    (4)           Penalty interest:  if (Party
B) fails to repay the loan when due, the interest shall accrue thereafter at an
annual rate which is double the original interest rate
above.  

    


    (5)          
Additional
Obligations:   If Party B fails to repay the loan to Party A when due, Party A shall have the right to collect, and enforce any of its other
legal rights as a creditor, under applicable PRC law.

    


    (6)           For any matters relating to this
agreement that are not
contained in this agreement, Party A and Party B agree to execute one or more further supplementary agreements after a negotiation between
the parties.

    


    (7)           Upon execution by both parties, each
supplementary agreement shall have the same legal force and effect as this agreement.

    


    (8)           This agreement is executed in two
counterparts, and each of Party A and Party B will keep
one copy.

    


    


     

    
      	
              Party A:

            	
              Changchun Yongxin Dirui Medical
      Co., Ltd.
      [Corporate
  Seal]

            


    

    


    
      	
              Party B:

            	
              Jilin Province Dingjian Natural
      Plant Base Company Limited   [Corporate Seal]

            


    

    


    Dated:  July 22,
2010
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John R. Serino, certify that:

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Encision Inc.;

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.               The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including our consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting;

5.               The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting  whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

Dated:    August 11, 2006.
|        | /s/ John R.  Serino          |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | John R. Serino               |
|   | Principal  Executive Officer |

 

----
In the Matter of J.H.

No. COA15-398.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

*Board Action:*                     Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in April, 2004, notice is hereby given that the Accounting and Auditing Policy Committee (AAPC), a permanent committee established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) will meet on September 16, 2005 at 10 am in room 6N30 of the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) Building (441 G Street NW).                

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss issues related to: 

—Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land Implementation,

—Inter-Entity Cost Implementation, and 

—Administrative Matters (Closed Session) 

                    A more detailed agenda can be obtained from the AAPC website (                    *http://fasab.gov/​aapc/​aapc.html*).                

Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public. GAO Building security requires advance notice of your attendance. Please notify FASAB of your planned attendance by calling 202-512-7350 at least one day prior to the respective meeting.

*For Further Information Contact:*                     Wendy M. Comes, Executive Director, 441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.                

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No 92-463.

Dated: September 9, 2005.

Charles W. Jackson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-18305  Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
# CE2004084EN.01021801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/218 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/218

---

(2004/C 84 E/0262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2837/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Creation of a new airline from Olympic Airways

Subject:

The Hellenic Parliament recently adopted a law regulating the form and operation of a new airline, Olympic Airlines, derived from Olympic Airways.

Article 11 of the new law annuls the collective labour agreements and procedures for reaching agreement concluded with the trade unions, following their termination by the Board of Olympic Airways and Olympic Aviation, while paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 9 of Law 1876/1990, which govern the period of validity of collective labour agreements, have ceased to apply.

Given that these developments constitute a change in industrial relations to the detriment of the workforce during the transfer to the new company, will the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the annulment of articles of Law 1876/1990 governing compliance with collective agreements and procedures for reaching agreement (an article of the new law) is consistent with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (1) relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the annulment of articles of Law 1876/1990 governing compliance with collective agreements and procedures for reaching agreement (an article of the new law) is consistent with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 98/50/EC (1) relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, and

1

| 2. | whether, in the event of non-compliance with the articles of Directive 98/50/EC, the Commission will intervene, and in what manner, to safeguard the rights of the workers who are being transferred to the new company and the rights of those remaining with the old company? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether, in the event of non-compliance with the articles of Directive 98/50/EC, the Commission will intervene, and in what manner, to safeguard the rights of the workers who are being transferred to the new company and the rights of those remaining with the old company?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

(16 April 2004)

In its letter of 30 October 2003, the Commission asked the Greek authorities for additional information on the questions raised by the Honourable Member about the social aspects of the formation of this new airline. As it received no response, it sent a reminder on 17 February 2004, giving the company two weeks to reply, which it failed to do.

As a result, the Commission is now considering what action it should take and will take care to inform the Honourable Member.

The Commission also decided on 17 March 2004 to examine in detail whether the formation of this new airline in September 2003 was compatible with the EC Treaty's rules on State aid.

---

(1)  OJ L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.

1

---