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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-7162 

JAMES E. SIGLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,

Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00076-JPB-JSK)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Sigley, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy

Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

James E. Sigley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sigley has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 8.1




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




The following chart lists each of our subsidiaries which we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2010, and June 16, 2011:




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.




Each of the Subsidiaries listed is incorporated under the laws of Mexico.
STATE v. Ricky Kyle CORBETT.

No. 337A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 8, 2008.

Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of October 2008 by Defendant for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of October 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1625/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of the egg sector vis-à-vis third country imports

Given that the EU egg industry is facing additional legislation in relation to food safety and animal welfare, does the Commission agree that the egg sector should be recognised as a sensitive sector vis-à-vis third country imports?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Under Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (1) an external study is to be carried out on the socio-economic implications where third countries are concerned of the Community legislation on laying hen welfare. Its findings will help determine the degree of sensitivity of the egg sector.

It is also to be noted that in the World Trade Organisation negotiations the Community has confirmed that it considers it important that trade liberalisation should not imperil the effort to improve animal welfare protection. Exclusion from the commitment reductions (‘green box’) is therefore proposed for compensation covering the additional costs involved in satisfying animal welfare standards, provided it can be shown that they are a direct result of adoption of more rigorous standards and therefore do not disturb trade or disturb it as little as possible.

----

(1)OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         224,193
<SECURITIES>                                 1,035,622
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,110,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,942,404
<PP&E>                                      12,714,779
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,783,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,874,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,990,842
<BONDS>                                     12,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,380)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,874,582
<SALES>                                      4,872,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,872,131
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,942,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               245,494
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             637,992
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                131,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                    52,730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             79,096
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    79,096
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17817]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7965-5]


National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notice of 
Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of charter renewal.

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

    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will be renewed 
for an a one-year period, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. II Sec.  9(c). The 
purpose of the NEJAC is to provide independent advice and 
recommendations to the Administrator on areas relating to environmental 
justice.
    EPA has determined that the NEJAC is in the public interest and 
supports the Agency in performing its duties and responsibilities.
    Inquiries may be directed to Charles Lee, NEJAC Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. EPA, (mail code 2201A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

    Dated: September 1, 2005.
Barry E. Hill,
Director, Office of Environmental Justice, Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 05-17817 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 12**CONSENT OF M. PEGNAM**     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 July 31, 2006, entitled “Penasquito FeasibilityStudy: 100,000 MTPD NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Penasquito 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 Penasquito Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ M. Pegnam
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN TELEVISION
CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q - MARCH 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,182
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,102
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,315
<PP&E>                                         176,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 595,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,570
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           298
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   595,789
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,662
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   403
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   279
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,137
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,711
<SECURITIES>                                    19,813
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,386
<INVENTORY>                                      8,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,027
<PP&E>                                         250,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,425
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 460,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          196,558
<BONDS>                                        232,185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   460,369
<SALES>                                         68,335
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,335
<CGS>                                           56,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   634
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,880
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,384
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,384
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
STATE v. BAILEY.

No. COA08-307.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Johnston (07CRS2442, 07CRS2443).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
AMERIQUEST
MORTGAGE
COMPANY




                              OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


                       MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES
                       RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE LOANS, SERIES
               1996-LB,1996-LB3,1997-LB1,1997-LB2,1997-LB3,1997LB4
                       1997-LB5,1997-LB6,1997-AQ1,1997-AQ2

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE  SECTION OF THE  ABOVE-CAPTIONED  POOLING AND
SERVICING  AGREEMENTS,  I, JULE J.  KEEN'AND  SHAWNA R.  OGILVIE  OF  AMERIQUEST
MORTGAGE COMPANY, (THE"SERVICER") HEREBY CERTIFY:

(i)  A REVIEW OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SERVICER  DURING THE PRECEDING  CALENDAR.
     YEAR,AND OF  PERFORMANCE  UNDER THESE  AGREEMENTS  HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER OUR
     SUPERVISION.

(ii) TO THE BEST OF OUR  KNOWLEDGE,  BASED ON SUCH  REVIEW,  TI-IE  SERVICER HAS
     FULFILLED ALL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THESE AGREEMENTS THROUGHOUT SUCH YEAR.


CERTIFIED THIS 15th DAY OF April, 1998

BY:/S/ JULE J.KEEN
JULE J. KEEN
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

BY /S/ SHAWNA R. OGLIVIE
SHAWNA R. OGLIVIE
VICE PRESIDENT



505 Main Street, Suite 6000, Orange, California 92868-4309, (714) 543.5262
FAX (714) 542-3059
STATE v. HARVEY.

No. COA08-658.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Johnston (04CRS55808).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Adam Jarmal HODGE.

No. 182A15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Steven Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Adam Jarmal Flodge, for Flodge, Adam Jarmal.

Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of September 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Buncombe County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
----

(2004/C 65 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Ventimiglia to Monaco railway line out of use: appeal to the Commission to approach the French authorities

The fact that the stretch of line between Ventimiglia and Monaco is out of use owing to the work being carried out in the Roquebrune tunnel is severely harming Ventimiglia's economy, bearing in mind also that the work is scheduled to continue until at least the end of 2003.

What representations will the Commission make to the French authorities to persuade them to speed up the work to repair the damage to the tunnel, thereby enabling the above-mentioned track section to be brought back into service as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Ventimiglia-Moncao line was closed to traffic following a cave-in which occurred in mid-June 2003 in the tunnel which runs under Monaco. Even though the infrastructure manager concerned (Réseau Ferré de France) is having to carry out considerable repair work, service is due to resume gradually by the end of the year. Since this operation is akin to maintenance rather than construction of new infrastructure or upgrading of existing infrastructure, it would not have been possible, even if the French authorities had so requested, for the project to be co-financed from the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget.

For a Member State temporarily to obstruct an important route may constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods. The Court has already found that measures which delay the movement of goods between Member States have the effect of restricting the free movement of goods in a way which is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty (1).

However, like Advocate General Jacobs in the Schmidberger case (2), the Commission believes there can be no absolute obligation to ensure that goods can move unimpeded at all times and at any cost, failure to observe which would always be an infringement of Community law. For instance, delays caused when repair work has to be carried out are an inherent part of rail transport and the causes may be unavoidable, especially where user safety is at stake.

In view of the above and of the information supplied to it, the Commission does not believe that the interruption of the Ventimiglia-Monaco rail service by the work under way in the Roquebrune tunnel is liable to constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods such as is incompatible with Article 28 of the EC Treaty.

----

(1)  Judgment of 26 September 2000 in Case C-23/99 Commission v France, ECR I-7653, paragraph 22.

(2)  C-112/00, ECR 2003.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Telly T. COX.

No. 320P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Richard E. Jester, Louisburg, for Cox.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 661 S.E.2d 294.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of July 2008 by Defendant 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 *763was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1605/03

by Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Possible breach of environment information directive

Following an aircraft accident, a German public prosecutor's office opened an investigation on grounds of ‘endangerment of rail, sea and air transport’.

The investigation was later closed. Subsequently, an application was made to the public prosecutor's office — under the German law on access to information concerning the environment and Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) on the freedom of access to information on the environment — for access to the files of the investigation.

The application was rejected on the grounds that, pursuant to § 3, paragraph 1, S2, No 3 of the above German law, the public prosecutor's office, as a law enforcement agency, does not fall among the authorities governed by that law.

Does the Commission consider the rejection pursuant to § 3, paragraph 1, S2, No 3 of the German Environment Information Law to be justified even though the public prosecutor's office was acting only in an investigative capacity and not in a ‘judicial capacity’ in accordance with Article 2(b) of Directive 90/313/EEC?

----

(1)OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (579)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,379
<PP&E>                                           8,568
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,788)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,302
<BONDS>                                         15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,929
<COMMON>                                        38,176
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,158
<SALES>                                         36,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,426
<CGS>                                            6,423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (13)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (154)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,251
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
# C_2023134EN.01002201.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/22

---

Action brought on 3 March 2023 — House of Prince v EUIPO — Biały (AROMA KING)

(Case T-118/23)

(2023/C 134/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: House of Prince A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: I. Fowler, I. Junkar and B. Worbes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Biały (Myszków, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark AROMA KING — Application for registration No 18 285 909

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2022 in Case R 777/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---