alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18388]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer 
review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's 
Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee.
    The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 
U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to 
be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These discussions are 
likely to involve information concerning individuals associated with 
the applications, including assessments of their personal 
qualifications to conduct their proposed projects. This information is 
exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.
    1. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Research Training.
    Date: September 22-23, 2005 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on 
September 22 and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    2. Name of Subcommittee: Health Research Dissemination and 
Implementation.
    Date: October 20-21, 2005 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 
21 and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    3. Name of Subcommittee: Health Systems Research.
    Date: October 20-21, 2005 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 
21 and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    4. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Technology and Decision 
Sciences.
    Date: October 27-28, 2005 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 
27 and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    5. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Quality and Effectiveness 
Research.
    Date: October 27-28, 2005 (Open 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on October 27 
and closed for remainder of the meeting).
    All the meetings above will take place at: Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality, John Eisenberg Conference Center, 540 Gaither 
Road, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of the meetings 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554. Agenda items for these meetings are subject 
to change as priorities dictate.

    Dated: September 1, 2005.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18388 Filed 9-13-05; 9:47 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Douglas A. Catalano, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of enherent Corp.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas A. Catalano                        
|Douglas A. Catalano                            
|Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|January 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 70 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 70

 To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF MEMORIAL 
              DAY.

    (a) Designation of Legal Public Holiday.--Section 6103(a) of title 
5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``Memorial Day, the last 
Monday in May.'' and inserting the following:
            ``Memorial Day, May 30.''.
    (b) Observances and Ceremonies.--Section 116 of title 36, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The last Monday in 
        May'' and inserting ``May 30''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph 
                (3);
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
                (5); and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following 
                new paragraph (4):
            ``(4) calling on the people of the United States to observe 
        Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies for showing respect for 
        American veterans of wars and other military conflicts; and''.
    (c) Display of Flag.--Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, 
is amended by striking ``the last Monday in May;'' and inserting ``May 
30;''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.7**

**Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-138760, 333-151243, 333-151251 and 333-174376 on Form S-8, as amended, and to the use ofour reports dated February 15, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Goldcorp Inc. and the effectiveness of Goldcorp Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F ofGoldcorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 30, 2012
Kristie Lea WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. James Marion CHANEY, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-812.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
NUMBER 13-08-00361-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOHN BARTLETT EVANS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court 

of San Patricio County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, John Bartlett Evans, attempts to appeal his conviction for delivery of

heroin. The trial court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has

NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On June 5, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On August 11, 2008, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s response

does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 21st day of August, 2008.
# CE2004070EN.01016401.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/164 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/164

---

(2004/C 70 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2928/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   European Spatial Development Perspective and the SRUNA Project

Subject:

In June 2000, the Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural Assets (SRUNA) project, which examined methods of planning for sustainable recreation in natural amenity areas in Dublin and Mid-East regions and which was funded by the EU TERRA programme, was completed.

How have the recommendations of the SRUNA project been incorporated into the follow-up to the European Spatial Development Perspective?

What current (or planned) EU-funded programmes and initiatives would be of relevance in relation to the implementation of the SRUNA recommendations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

(25 November 2003)

The programme TERRA was launched in 1997 in the context of the innovative actions financed by the Article 10 of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). It concerned 15 experimental, transnational and interregional innovative pilot projects in the field of spatial planning throughout Europe, one of which was the project SRUNA (Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural Assets).

A total of EUR 40 million (of which EUR 20 million from the ERDF) was earmarked for the TERRA programme. TERRA was conceived as a laboratory for testing new approaches to, and methodologies for, spatial planning. In addition, TERRA — together with the Interreg IIC programmes — aimed to contribute to the assessment of the relevance of the policy options proposed by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP).

The final TERRA report, published by the Commission at the beginning of 2000, concluded that the SRUNA project had obtained very good results by developing a bottom-up partnership for sustainable development, an inventory of recreational natural assets and best practice guidelines for integrated planning (including a report on access for disabled to recreational natural assets. These results were disseminated via the TERRA seminars and workshops as part of the effort to promote spatial planning in widely diverse cultural and institutional contexts. More information can be found on the web-site. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/innovation/innovating/terra/expplan/toc.html).

As it was pointed out in the TERRA closing event held in Brussels in spring 2000, which gathered partners from all 15 projects, no extension of the TERRA programme as such was foreseen. Rather, the Community initiative Interreg III, 2000-2006, is the natural framework under which the continuation of this type of co-operation is possible. The Commission adopted the guidelines for the Community initiative Interreg III on 28 April 2000 (1). Specific guidelines for interregional co-operation were approved on 4 May 2001 (2).

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

1

(2)  OJ C 141, 15.5.2001.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18371]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Date and Time: Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 2 p.m. eastern time.

Place: Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of 
the EEOC Office Building, 1801 ``L'' Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

Status: Part of the meeting will be open to the public and part of the 
meeting will be closed.

Matters to be Considered: 

Open Session:

    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. Obligation of Funds for Procurement of Expert Services for a 
Litigation Case

Closed Session:

    Litigation Authorization: General Counsel Recommendations.

    Note: Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over 
to a later meeting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC 
Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also 
provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future 
Commission sessions.)
    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) 
at any time for information on these meetings.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    This notice issued September 12, 2005.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 05-18371 Filed 9-12-05; 2:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51309

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SABINO MALDONADO-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1281-ALL-DB

--------------------

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Sabino Maldonado-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Maldonado contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Maldonado maintains that he pleaded
No. 02-51309

-2-

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Maldonado acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
James R. CRIDER, Sr. and wife, Kathy Crider v. John Vincent CATTIE, M.D.

No. 197P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Steven C. Lawrence, Fayetteville, for Crider, James R. (Sr.), et al.

Jeffery Kent Carpenter, for Crider, James R. (Sr.).

Scott M. Stevenson, Charlotte, for Cattie, John Vincent (M.D.).

Karen H. Stiles, Charlotte, for Cattie, John Vincent (M.D.).

Scott A. Hefner.

Stacey E. Tally, Fayetteville, for Crider, James R. (Sr.).

Jacob Stump, Charlotte, for Cattie, John Vincent (M.D.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th 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 was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> *855"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Thomas H. BLAKE, Plaintiff, v. Jane HARRIS, Defendant.

No. COA15-736.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11001

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00007-WTM-GRS-12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEROY CHISHOLM, 

a.k.a. Fats,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(December 4, 2014)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-11001 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Mark Hendrix, appointed counsel for Leroy Chisholm in this appeal, has 

moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Chisholm’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-11001 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 2 of 2
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2008 – Greece v Commission**

**(Case T-404/05)**

Cohesion Fund – Athens International Airport – Reduction of financial assistance – Principle of proportionality

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Temporal application – Immediate application of the new rule (see para. 77)*

2.                     *Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Reduction of financial assistance where essential obligations infringed – Lawfulness
(see para. 89)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1144

ZORA BACKOULAS-SPRING,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. 

Submitted: July 23, 2008 Decided: August 29, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric H. Singer, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G.

Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,

Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

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

PER CURIAM:

Zora Backoulas-Spring (“Backoulas”), a native and citizen

of the Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). Backoulas challenges the

Board’s order adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s denial

of a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(c) (2006), and

her ruling that Backoulas’ prior conviction was for a particularly

serious crime under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) (2006), rendering him

ineligible for withholding from removal. Backoulas argues the

immigration judge used evidence beyond the record supporting his

attempted burglary conviction to make the determinations that he

was dangerous and his conviction was particularly serious. Finding

no legal error, we deny the petition for review. 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2006), this court

lacks jurisdiction to review any discretionary decision denying

relief, such as the denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or the

determination that a conviction is for a particularly serious

crime. This court does have jurisdiction, however, to review

constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006).

We have reviewed the issues Backoulas raises with respect

to the standards employed by the immigration judge in determining

Backoulas was dangerous based on his attempted burglary conviction.

We see no error of law, as the correct standard was used. Insofar
- 3 -

as the immigration judge found Backoulas’ crime was dangerous, we

lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision.

Likewise, we find no error with respect to the standard

the immigration judge used to find Backoulas’ attempted burglary

was a particularly serious crime. We lack jurisdiction to review

the immigration judge’s ultimate, discretionary conclusion. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED