alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 5**CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the use of our report, dated February 7, 2005 except as to Note 20 which is asof March 9, 2007, included in this annual report on Form 40-F.We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-126037,333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040 and 333-138760 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 7, 2005except as to Note 20 which is as of March 9, 2007, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F ofGoldcorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ KPMG LLPToronto, Ontario, Canada
# CE2004078EN.01017401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/174 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/174

---

(2004/C 78 E/0178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2812/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Revision of the Directive on driving licences — driving licences for light motorcycles

Subject:

The Commission's Work Programme for 2003 includes a proposed revision of the Directive on driving licences.

Is the Commission planning to make it possible for drivers applying for Category Β licences to automatically obtain Category A1 licences for motorcycles of 125 cc and under and 11 kW and under (light motorcycles) without a further test?

In Germany before 1 April 1980, licences for Category A1 mopeds were issued at the same time as Category 3 licences (equivalent to the present Category B), meaning a greater choice of modes of transport.

Would it not be a good idea to introduce a similar rule throughout Europe?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

(15 October 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1) allows Member States to authorise light motorcycles to be driven on their territory under a category B car licence. This option is currently available in Spain, France, Italy and Austria, with certain conditions applying in the case of Spain, France and Austria (2). Regarding the situation in Germany, it should be noted that this is an acquired right of long standing which has been confirmed by Decision 2000/275/EC (3), and not an equivalence under the terms of the driving licences Directive.

1

2

3

The Commission does not intend to propose amendments in this respect.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

1

(2)  Commission interpretative communication on Community driver licensing, OJ C 77, 28.3.2002.

2

(3)  Commission Decision 2000/275/EC of 21 March 2000 on equivalences between certain categories of driving licences, OJ L 91, 12.4.2000.

3

---
**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, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376 and 333-181116 on Form S-8, and to the use of our reportsdated February 14, 2013 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 of Goldcorp Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2012. 

/s/ Deloitte LLP 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 1, 2013
----

(2004/C 33 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Interreg bureaucracy

The rules governing Interreg subsidies in the Netherlands include passages which make administration unnecessarily difficult. For example, in order to be eligible for a subsidy it is necessary actually to show proof of payment of all invoices and wage/salary payments. This discourages organisations from applying for subsidies, so that inadequate use is made of the funds potentially available.

In the Netherlands, the procedure for applying for an Interreg BMG (Benelux-Middengebied/Central Benelux Region) subsidy is often seen as enormously cumbersome: merely producing a thorough project plan with defined end products already costs a huge amount. In addition, the administration is of considerable complexity: it is necessary to produce evidence of deployment of manpower, invoices, copies of pay slips and now, as mentioned above, also proof of payment.

This means in practical terms that each month a partner has to check which employees on the pay roll have contributed to the project and must print out a list of them, after which he must submit proof of payment/a copy of the bank statement providing the requisite overview. All this information is computerised and stored on payment diskettes, so that it is relatively easy to retrieve from the system, but it is difficult to print out because the relevant lists are enormously long. In a word, while partners' administrative work and book-keeping are computerised, Europe is still insisting on manually produced evidence/copies.

Moreover, I have found that, as a result of the various national approaches and interpretations, project concepts which would be very suitable are often refused Interreg funding and an unnecessary amount of time is wasted because of inadequate coordination.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

----
#### Generale Bank, Appellant-Respondent, v Bell Security, Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 2]

*845Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter J. Relihan, J), entered March 29, 2005, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff damages in the principal sum of $450,749, plus $420,044 in interest and costs, unanimously affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiff payable by defendant.

The issue of the court’s instruction on the proper measure of damages is not preserved. In any event, the damage award was not against the weight of the evidence since it rested on a fair interpretation of the evidence at trial *(see McDermott v Coffee Beanery, Ltd.,*9 AD3d 195, 206 [2004]; *Kennedy v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*300 AD2d 146 [2002]). Given the testimony of plaintiff’s assistant vice-president in the credit department, who conducted an extensive audit of the inventory prior to its removal, and given the contents of plaintiff’s expert’s appraisal report, it was reasonable for the jury to have based its award on planned liquidation value, rather than wholesale value.

Contrary to defendant’s contention that plaintiffs expert’s opinion—which set forth a retail value, a wholesale value and a planned liquidation value for the missing inventory—was based entirely on speculation, the expert’s testimony set forth a detailed and systematic approach to establishing the various values for the inventory. The fact that plaintiffs expert relied to some extent on the Yellow Pages to contact auctioneers did not render her testimony inadmissible; defendant, which presented no evidence on valuation, failed to demonstrate that the use of such materials was not accepted in the field of appraisals as reliable in forming a professional opinion *(see People v Sugden,*35 NY2d 453, 460 [1974]; *Moors v Hall,*143 AD2d 336, 339 [1988]). Furthermore, the fact that plaintiff’s expert never viewed the subject inventory is of no avail since her testimony had a sufficient factual basis *(see People v Hart,*227 AD2d 916 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 923 [1996]; *Ley v State of New York,*28 AD2d 943 [1967], *affd*25 NY2d 876 [1969]).

We have accepted defendant Bell Security’s reply brief. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
NUMBERS 13-08-00207-CR 

13-08-00208-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

ADAM ANDERSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Adam Anderson, attempts to appeal his conviction for possession of

methamphetamine and tampering with physical evidence. The trial court has certified in

both cases 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 April 24, 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 certifications currently on file with this Court are 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, these appeals

are 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.
Ashley Keith PITTMAN, and wife, DeAnna Pittman, Plaintiffs, v. HENRY MONCURE MOTORS, INC., Mobile Home Sales, a Corporation, and Crestline Homes, Inc., a Corporation, Defendants.

No. COA14-1186.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.
CAROLINA MARLIN CLUB MARINA ASSOCIATION, INC. d/b/a Morehead-Beaufort Yacht Club v. Harry PREDDY and Valerie Freddy.

No. 46P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Amie Huber, Morehead City, for Preddy, Harry, et al.

C.R. Wheatly, III, for Carolina Marlin Club Marina Association, Inc., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 13th of February 2015 by Plaintiff 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:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: CATHY COLEMAN, 

Debtor. No. 06-16477

D.C. No.

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CV-05-05231-SC

CORPORATION,  Northern District

Appellant, of California,

San Francisco v.

ORDER CATHY COLEMAN,

Appellee. 

Filed August 22, 2008

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and

Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges, and James V. Selna,*

District Judge.

ORDER

Because the bankruptcy court’s denial of Educational Credit’s motion to dismiss was an interlocutory order, this court

lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the district

court’s order affirming that decision. See Stanley v. S.S. Retail

Stores Corp. (In re S.S. Retail Stores Corp.), 162 F.3d 1230,

1232 (9th Cir. 1998), and Belo Broad. v. Rubin (In re Rubin),

693 F.2d 73, 74 (9th Cir. 1982). The Opinion filed on August

1, 2008 is vacated and the case is remanded for the limited

purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether to

*The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the

Central District of California, sitting by designation. 

11391
certify this issue for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See,

e.g., Goodson v. Rowland (In re Pintlar Corp.), 133 F.3d

1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1998); Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd.,

101 F.3d 863, 864 (2d Cir. 1996) (purpose of 1292(b) is to

allow the Court of Appeals to “rule on . . . ephemeral question[s] of law that m[ight] disappear in the light of a complete

and final record.”). 

If the district court determines that certification is appropriate, we will construe the previously filed notice of appeal in

this docket as a timely request for permission to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 5. Upon issuance of the district court’s

ruling on remand, we will determine whether to dismiss this

appeal for lack of jurisdiction or to grant permission to file the

interlocutory appeal. 

SO ORDERED.

11392 IN THE MATTER OF: COLEMAN

PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
# CE2004078EN.01002202.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/22

---

(2004/C 78 E/0023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0883/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(21 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Customs 2002 programme by the municipality of Fiumicino

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 Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds for measures to enhance the spirit of partnership and cooperation created between the Commission and the Member States, for monitoring and anti-fraud measures and in order to improve the tools used by customs authorities in their work, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Customs 2002 programme?

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

2.

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

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

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report") of Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

| |  | /s/THEODORE F. CRAVER, JR.Theodore F. Craver, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/W. JAMES SCILACCIW. James Scilacci
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy            

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54387-54388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Notice of Secretary's Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; Advisory Committee on Head Start Research 
and Evaluation.

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

SUMMARY: The 1998 Head Start Reauthorization (42 U.S.C. 9844(g); 
section 649(g)(1) of the Head Start Act, as amended) called on the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to form an independent panel of 
experts (i.e., an Advisory Committee) to offer advice concerning 
research designs that would provide a national analysis of the

[[Page 54388]]

impact of Head Start Programs. The September 28-29, 2005 meeting 
provides an opportunity for the Advisory Committee to provide advice on 
the analysis plans for the study following the June 2005 release on the 
first impact findings.

DATES: September 28 (9 a.m.-4 p.m.) and 29 (9 a.m.-12:30 p.m.), 2005.
    Place: Bethesda Park Clarion Hotel, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; Phone: (301) 654-1000; Fax: (301) 654-0751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is open to the public and is 
barrier free. Meeting records will also be open to the public and will 
be kept at the Aerospace Building, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 
Washington, DC 20447. The Administration for Children and Families also 
intends to make material related to this meeting available on the 
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation Web site (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/index.html). An interpreter for the deaf 
and hearing impaired will be available upon advance request by calling 
Xtria at 703-821-6182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Woolverton at 202-205-4039 for 
substantive information. Contact ACF Office of Public Affairs at 202-
401-9215 for press inquiries. Contact Xtria at 703-821-6182 for 
logistical information.

    Dated: September 7, 2005.
Naomi Goldstein,
Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, ACF.
[FR Doc. 05-18257 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
DEVERZE v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al.

No. S15A0845.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 5, 2015.

Jean A. Deverze, Marietta, for appellant.

Teah Nicole Glenn, David Marino Pernini, Shawna Marie Portner, Wargo & French LLP, Atlanta, Frank Reid Olson, Cobb, Olson & Andrle, LLC, Atlanta, for appellee.

**Opinion**

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 6 2 5 3 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 0 6 4

- C R

- 2

- L S C

- R R A

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

R I C K Y G U Y L E A T H E R W O O D , a

. k

. a

. S l i c k R i c k ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N , W I L S O N a n d F A Y , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

T h o m a s R

. W o l s o n c r o f

t , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f

o r R i c k y G u y L e a t h e r w o o d , h a sf

i l e d a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o
A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r
i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e

r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s
G R A N T E D , a n d t h e L e a t h e r w o o d ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 769 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure 

that participants in the Troops to Teachers program may teach at 

a range of eligible schools. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. ALLARD) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to ensure that participants in the Troops to 

Teachers program may teach at a range of eligible 

schools. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Troops to Teachers 

5 Improvement Act of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 769 IS

1 SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL AS2 SISTANCE UNDER TROOPS TO TEACHERS 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 Section 2304 of the Elementary and Secondary Edu5 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6674) is amended in sub6 section (a)(1)(B) by striking ‘‘for not less than 3 school 

7 years’’ and all that follows through the period at the end 

8 and inserting the following: ‘‘for not less than 3 school 

9 years, to begin the school year after obtaining that certifi10 cation or licensing, with a high-need local educational 

11 agency or public charter school, as such terms are defined 

12 in section 2101 or, if there is no high-need local edu13 cational agency or public charter school for which the 

14 member is qualified to teach within a 50-mile radius of 

15 the member’s residence, then under circumstances covered 

16 by section 2302(b)(2).’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
JOHNSON v. NASH COMMUNITY COLLEGE.

No. COA08-969.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Nash (07CVS2080).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Tonya M. PRICE. v. Robert CALDER, Jr.

No. 162P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Randolph M. James, Winston-Salem, for Price, Tonya M.

Patrick M. Mincey, Wilmington, for Calder, Robert (Jr.).

Kara O. Gansmann, Wilmington, for Calder, Robert (Jr.).

*871*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of May 2015 by Plaintiff 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 20th of August 2015."
OUTER BANKS WATER & SEWER, L.L.C. v. R.P.C. CONST., INC.

No. COA08-709.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Currituck (06CVS198).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.