alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 16
- 00094
- CV
COLETTE SAVAGE , Appellant v. MARK SAVAGE , Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 52939

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Colette Savage filed a pro se notice of appeal stating that she is appealing two orders: (1) the “Order Granting Dismissal of McDonald as Defendant and Ordering Sanctions Against Colette Clara Savage” and (2) the “Order Regarding Requests for Admissions Filed by Colette Savage.” Both orders were signed by the trial court on February 17, 2016. However, all pending parties and claims have not been disposed of in this case; therefore, there is no final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 192

- 93 (Tex. 2001).Savage v. Savage Page 2

This Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judgment that is not final, unless there is specific statutory authority permitting an appeal before final judgment.
See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.012 (West 2015). None o f the exceptions to the rule that only final judgments can be appealed applies in this case. See id. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2015) (listing interlocutory judgments that may be appealed before final judgment is rendered in the case). We notified Appellant that her appeal might be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. This appeal is therefor e dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Appellant’s request for more time to conduct more research is dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opini on delivered and filed April 28, 2016 [CV06]
The NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. Jerry R. TILLETT, Attorney.

No. 208P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Norman W. Shearin, Kitty Hawk, for Tillett, Jerry R.

David R. Ferrell, Raleigh.

Kevin A. Rust, Raleigh.

G. Patrick Murphy, for The NC State Bar.

Jennifer A. Porter, Deputy Counsel.

*606*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of June 2015 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
Exhibit 10.3





Exhibit 10.3




THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This THIRD AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) amends the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered
into as of October 3, 2006, by and between Pennichuck Corporation (the “Corporation”), a New
Hampshire corporation with principal offices at 25 Manchester St. Merrimack, New Hampshire and
Donald L. Ware (the “Executive”) of Merrimack, NH.



In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable
consideration, the Corporation and Executive hereby amend the Agreement as follows:



1. Article 7.1 is amended by deleting from the third sentence of the first paragraph the phrase
“for (A) the remaining term of this Agreement, of (B) the period of twelve (12) months from the
date of termination, whichever is greater,” and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase “for a period
of twenty-four (24) months from the date of employment termination.”



2. Article 7.2 is amended by inserting after the last sentence thereof the following:



“Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event the Corporation terminates the employment of the
Executive other than for Cause within twenty-four (24) months following a Change of Control, the
Corporation shall provide the Executive with severance benefits, payable as a lump sum, equal to
the Executive’s then current salary and fringe benefits provided hereunder, including any bonus for
which he may be entitled, for a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of employment
termination; provided that, in consideration thereof, prior to such payment, the Executive executes
and delivers to the Corporation, in form and content acceptable to the Corporation, a release of
all claims and causes of action that the Executive has or may ever have against the Corporation
arising from the termination of the Executive’s employment and under this Agreement provided that
nothing herein shall require a release of claims of breach of this Agreement.”



3. Article 7.4 shall be amended by (a) deleting the word “or” following the semi-colon in clause
(iii), (b) deleting the period at the end of clause (iv) and by inserting in lieu thereof the
following, “; or” and (c) by inserting immediately after clause (iv) the following:



“(v) to the extent not otherwise described in the preceding clauses (i) through (iv),
inclusive, there shall be consummated a transaction of the type contemplated under the Agreement
and Plan of Merger between the City of Nashua, New Hampshire and the Corporation.”



(continued next page)




 


 









 







THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the Employment Agreement is executed as of the 15th day of November, 2010,
by:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESS:	 	PENNICHUCK CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Thomas C. Leonard
 


	 	By:
	 	/s/ Duane C. Montopoli
 

Name: Duane C. Montopoli
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Its:      President and Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	WITNESS:	 	EMPLOYEE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Thomas C. Leonard	 	/s/ Donald L. Ware	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Donald L. Ware	 	 





 


2
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-296-CV

ESSY MOAZAMI	APPELLANT	

	V.

CACH, LLC	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	On July 17, 2008 and July 30, 2008, we notified appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).  Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

	Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2 we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ.  

DELIVERED:   August 21, 2008
Exhibit 99.15

CONSENT OF GUILLERMO PAREJA

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., Peñasquito Polymetallic Project, Zacatecas State, Mexico NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Peñasquito Report); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Peñasquito Report and the Peñasquito Mine, 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/ Guillermo ParejaName: Guillermo Pareja, P. Geo.
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.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

# ACTION:

 Notice of Public Meeting Agenda.

# DATE AND TIME:

Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 10 a.m.-12 noon.

# PLACE:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center).

# AGENDA:

The Commission will receive the following reports: Title II Requirements Payments Update; public comments received regarding the proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines; and updates on other administrative matters. The Commission will receive presentations on the Election Day Survey Report.

This meeting will be open to the public.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,

Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-18219  Filed 9-9-05; 11:02 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M
STATE of North Carolina v. Freddie ROBINSON.

No. 427P11-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Freddie Robinson, for Robinson, Freddie.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of September 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.
STATE v. FORTE.

No. COA07-739.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Cabarrus (06CRS311, 06CRS312, 06CRS2658).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                
|David P. Anastasi                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|August 5, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       6,716,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,212,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                   705,500
<INVENTORY>                                 31,549,091
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            62,986,338
<PP&E>                                      29,891,962
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,262,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,286,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,175,699
<BONDS>                                     16,002,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,176
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,868,071
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,286,019
<SALES>                                    121,827,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,996,686
<CGS>                                       88,176,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,564,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,655
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,679,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,769,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,440,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,386,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,386,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23**CONSENT OF H. BURGESS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated January 2003, entitled “Technical Report on Mining andProcessing Assets of Peak Gold Mines, in New South Wales, Australia and Minera Alumbera Ltd.in Argentina” (the “Peak Gold Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Peak Gold Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ H. Burgess
IN RE A.G.

No. COA08-1376.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Iredell (05JT01).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kelvin Allen McNEIL.

No. 508P1N0.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 3, 2011.

David B. Efird, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Kelvin Allen McNeil, for McNeil, Kelvin Allen.

Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of December 2010 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of February 2011."
# CE2004088EN.01061701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/617 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/617

---

(2004/C 88 E/0636)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Poul Nielsen's statements on the USA's presence in Iraq

Subject:

On Friday 9 May 2003, the EU Commissioner for Development made a number of remarks which sowed doubts about the USA's intentions in Iraq, including: ‘I believe that the USA is on its way to becoming a member of OPEC like this. They are appropriating the oil. It is very difficult to make sense of it otherwise’.

These remarks are totally unacceptable. The USA's presence in Iraq is to ensure that the country does not collapse and that the revenue from Iraqi oil is used to transform Iraq into a modern, democratic society free of Islamic fundamentalism. The world cannot live with dictatorships that perpetrate terrorism internally and externally. Anyone with a modicum of insight realises that it would be a disaster for the Iraqis if the coalition left the country now and allowed the warring factions to wreck the country's future.

Since the Commission is a collegiate body which does not allow Commissioners to hold diverging views on political issues, will the Commission say whether Poul Nielsen's remarks reflect the Commission's official position on the presence of the international coalition in Iraq?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

What the Member of the Commission responsible for Development actually said, and the underlying reasoning behind the statement, is the following: Without the United Nations being given a decisive role in the reconstruction phase, it is very difficult for the United States to avoid slipping into the role of the power-bearer and the controller of the oil. The core issue to get across is that the only way to avoid that problem is to whole-heartedly promote multilateralism and legitimacy. This can only be assured if it is not the occupying power that governs. If the occupying power does not take a step back when it comes to the establishment of the system and the allocation of considerable oil resources (which only the United Nations's involvement can legitimise), there is a risk that those Iraqis appointed by the United States are not perceived as the right choice by other Iraqis, and broad support among the Iraqi population is key to stability and normalisation for the future Iraq.

His statement corresponds well with the description of the role of the occupying power (‘the Authority’) in the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) of 22 May 2003.

Of course the statement of the Member of the Commission was an expression of his own analysis of the situation, — and as such neither very original nor controversial. Mr Camre could also have drawn guidance from the thorough and constructive debate on Iraq in the Parliament's plenary session in Strasbourg on 14 May 2003 where the Commissioner represented the Commission.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALTON CHARLES MAY, a/k/a Chuckie, a/k/a John Dieudonne, 

a/k/a Nieem,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:12-cr-00278-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-02999-RWT)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 19, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton Charles May, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Bressack, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alton Charles May seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion or underlying habeas application 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 371 (4th Cir. 2004). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that May 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the Matter of: D.T., S.K., G.K.

No. COA15-705.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 801

AN ACT

To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, 

California, as the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 801 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse bordered by O Street, 

3 P Street, Tulare Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, 

4 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert 

5 E. Coyle United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle United States 

11 Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate April 10, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 801

AN ACT

To designate a United States courthouse located in 

United States Courthouse’’.Fresno, California, as the ‘‘Robert E. Coyle
STATE v. Mickey Vonrice ROLLINS.

No. 138PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 22, 2009.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rollins.

Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of January 2009 by Defendant for Leave to File Reply Brief:

*546"Motion Allowed. By order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of January 2009."