alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 7, 2014

Order 

Clerk

January 7, 2014

147296(99)(100)

WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM and WAYNE

COUNTY RETIREMENT COMMISSION,

Plaintiffs/CounterDefendants-Appellees,

SC: 147296

v COA: 308096

Wayne CC: 10-013013-AW

CHARTER COUNTY OF WAYNE,

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff-Appellant,

and

WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of plaintiffs/counter-defendantsappellees for immediate consideration and to extend the time to file their supplemental 

brief are GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if filed on or before 

January 22, 2014.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Jonquan Montreil YOUNG, Defendant.

No. COA14-1215.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

[TRANSLATED FROM THE HEBREW]


                                   [EMBLEM OF
                              THE STATE OF ISRAEL]

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE                                       REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES
                               THE STATE OF ISRAEL


                THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE [NEW VERSION], 5743-1983


                  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND REGISTRATION
                              OF A PRIVATE COMPANY



                           CHANGE OF NAME CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that by virtue of a special resolution and pursuant to section
37 of the Companies Ordinance [New Version], 5743-1983, the company:


                              SCANVEC CO (1990) LTD

has changed its name and shall henceforth be known by the name:

                              SCANVEC-AMIABLE LTD

and such amended name as aforesaid has been registered in the Register of
Companies.

Given under my hand in Jerusalem this 17th day of October 1999; the 7th day of
Heshvan 5760.



(Signed)
Registrar of Companies


                                [REGISTRY STAMP]


                                                         Company No. 52-004240-9


[Stamp - "Registrar of Companies & Partnerships - Copy accords with the original
-  27.06.2000  (-) Annetta  Klein - Fee total __ - Receipt no.  __________  - pp
Registrar of Companies"]
# CE2004065EN.01004801.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/48

---

(2004/C 65 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0846/03

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject:   Quality promotion

Subject:

The Commission's proposal over the reform of the CAP provides for Regulation (EC) 2826/2000 (1) on internal promotion of agricultural products to be abolished in 2005, although the projects funded under this regulation have hardly got underway. The Commission wishes to replace the regulation, which is geared to generic campaigns, with a new measure within the Rural Development chapter, aimed at promoting quality labels, arguing the need to avoid double funding.

1

Independently of the fact that the reason adduced by the Commission is completely unfounded, since the two initiatives have totally different objectives, and indeed could be said to be in opposition to each other, can the Commission explain why the decision to be taken by the Fifteen on the reform is being pre-empted by cutting the budget for Regulation EC 2826/2000 now, in 2003? The reasons advance reasons adduced by the Commission service claim that the cutback is due to the poor quality of many of the projects submitted for 2002. Does the Commission believe that this is the most appropriate way of motivating and educating those concerned?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

(15 April 2003)

It is right that the first series of promotion and information programmes for agricultural products under Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 December 2000 on information and promotion actions for agricultural products on the internal market, were decided in August 2002. That is also the reason why budget credits for Community internal market promotion measures amounting to EUR 50,3 million were utilised only up to EUR 15 448 million (Budget year 2002). For 2003, Budget credits are foreseen for EUR 46,5 million (Budget lines Bl-3800 and Bl-3810) and the preview of utilisation shows better results for this year.

The Commission can confirm that one of the reasons for the low consumption of budget credits is due to the quality of the submitted promotion proposals. Out of 120 proposals received, only 40 proposals, from professional organisations from 14 Member States, could be accepted as conform to the discipline of the Regulation and the guidelines for promotion programmes.

Concerning the replacement of Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 by a new measure under the Rural Development Proposal within the Common agricultural policy (CAP) Reform proposal, it is worth mentioning, that following the actual state of the debate of this proposal in the Parliament and in the Council, the Commission is analysing the possibility of coexistence of both regimes, taking care to exclude any overlapping.

---

(1)  OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

1

---
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-20,058-25

EX P ARTE CURTIS RAY G OODIE, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 928493-E IN THE 248T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to ag g rava t ed s ex ual assault and was sentenc ed to fiftee n y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. I n his first g round for revie w in this application, Applicant alleg es that he is being improperly require d to comply with sex offe nder conditions of parole in a differ ent case based on his conviction in this case , despite having discharg ed his sentenc e in this case . I n h is second g round, Applicant alleg es that the DNA linking him to this off ense was unlawfully collecte d and enter ed into a DNA databa se as a

result of a

n err or in the judg ment from a pr evious ca se.2

This Court has revie wed Applicant’s first g round for revie w and deter mined that it is without merit. There fore , Applicant’s first g round is denied. Applicant’s second g round for revie w is barr ed by Article 11.07, Sec tion 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, and is dismissed.

Filed: May

18, 2022 Do not publish
# C_2010179EN.01003002.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Outokumpu and Luvata v Commission

(Case T-20/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Size of the relevant market - Aggravating circumstance - Repeat infringement)

(2010/C 179/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Outokumpu Oyj (Espoo, Finland); and Luvata Oy, formerly Outokumpu Copper Products Oy (Espoo) (represented by: J. Ratliff, Barrister, F. Distefano and J. Luostarinen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

Re:

Application for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2(j) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Outokumpu Oyj and Luvata Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Outokumpu Oyj and Luvata Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---
Exhibit 99.20
 CONSENT OF D. T. WELLS
   1.
    
    The technical report dated February 13, 2009 entitled An Updated
Technical Report on the Mineral Reserves of Minera Alumbrera Ltd.,
Catamarca, Argentina (the Alumbrera Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Alumbrera Report and the Alumbrera
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ David T. WellsName:
    
    David T. Wells, C. Eng.Title:
    
    Senior MetallurgistMicon International Limited
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Cain WILSON.

No. COA15-536.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
STATE v. Dennis O'Keith BLACKWELL.

No. 525P13-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

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

Dennis O'Keith Blackwell, for Blackwell, Dennis O'Keith.

Wallace W. Bradsher, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of October 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
Exhibit 99.20

CONSENT OF ANDREW S. TRIPP

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the
AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and documents:



| | 1. | The technical report dated March 21, 2011, entitled Goldcorp Inc., Marlin Gold Operation, Department of San Marcos, Guatemala, NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Marlin Report); and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Marlin Report and the Marlin Mines, and the properties
described therein.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the
40-F, the MD&A and the AIF into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-138760, 333-151243, 333-151251 and 333-174376 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2012



/s/ Andrew S. TrippName:

Andrew S. Tripp, P.Eng.
In the Matter of N.T.

No. 119PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

W. Michael Spivey, Attorney at Law, Rocky Mount, For Townsend, James.

Roger A. Askew, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Human Services.

Shannon Hoff, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For GAL.

Claire A. Hunter, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Wake County Human Services.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 31st of March 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:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of April 2015 by Petitioner 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:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1923Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1923 of 26 October 2015 amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against            the Republic of Guinea         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1923                     

# of 26 October 2015

# amending Decision 2010/638/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 25 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/638/CFSP(1) concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea.

(2)On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/638/CFSP, those restrictive measures should be extended until 27 October 2016.

(3)Decision 2010/638/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 8(2) of Decision 2010/638/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘2.This Decision shall apply until 27 October 2016. It shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed or amended, as                           appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Luxembourg, 26 October 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

1

Council Decision 2010/638/CFSP of 25 October 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Republic of Guinea (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 10).
**CERTIFICATION**I, Lindsay A. Hall, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc.;2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4.  The issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;     (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5.  The issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and     (b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.                Date: March 13, 2009    By: /s/ Lindsay A. Hall Lindsay A. Hall            Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. Napoleon Junior RANKIN.

No. 40P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Napoleon J. Rankin, for Rankins, Napoleon Junior.

J. Douglas Flenderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of July 2015 by Defendant for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Dudley J. EMICK and Martha E. Emick, Plaintiff v. SUNSET BEACH & TWIN LAKES, INC., Edward M. Gore, Dinah E. Gore, and Town of Sunset Beach, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Ronald Ernest Cohn, et als., Third-Party Defendants.

No. 19P09.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Dudley J. Emick, Pro Se, for Dudley & Martha Emick.

Roy D. Trest, Calabash, for Sunset Beach, et al.

Mack L. Hewett, Shallotte, for Samuel Varnum.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th day of January 2009 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                         US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                       4,074,276
<SECURITIES>                                 4,096,361
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,439,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,456,597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,510,238
<PP&E>                                       1,816,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 360,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,740,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,953,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,770
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,781,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,740,502
<SALES>                                     29,066,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,066,895
<CGS>                                       15,952,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,952,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,918,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,536,107
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,498,473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,037,634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,037,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        


</TABLE>
# CE2004065EN.01006701.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/67

---

(2004/C 65 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Pisa

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pisa, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pisa has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pisa has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
Exhibit 8.1

**Subsidiaries of Industrias Bachoco S.A.B.de C.V.**

 

The following chart lists each of our subsidiarieswhich we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2011, and April 30, 2013:

 

1. Aviser, S.A. de C.V.

 

2. Bachoco, S.A. de C.V.

 

3. Bachoco Comercial, S.A. de C.V.

 

4. Campi Alimentos, S.A. de C.V.

 

5. Operadora de Servicios de Personal, S.A. de C.V.

 

6. Pecuarius Laboratorios, S.A. de C.V.

 

7. Secba, S.A. de C.V.

 

8. Sepetec, S. A. de C.V.

 

9. Servicios de Personal Administrativo, S.A. de C.V.

 

10. Induba Pavos, S.A de C.V.

 

11. Bachoco USA, LLC and Subsidiaries

 

Each of the Subsidiaries listed is incorporated under the lawsof Mexico, except by Bachoco USA, LLC and Subsidiaries.