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

(2004/C 33 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1861/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Minotauro project

The Spanish ‘Minotauro’ project, which includes bull running and may possibly include bullfighting, has been proposed for financing under the Interreg IIIC South programme. Interreg IIIC is designed to strengthen the economic and social cohesion of the European Union by promoting cooperation between regions and communities in fields regarded as of common interest, whether or not the regions concerned border on one another.

Interreg EIC projects always receive national co-financing.

The national and regional authorities, as members of the steering committee, have powers to examine, evaluate and select projects.

Does the Commission have evidence suggesting that the Minotauro project might be in contravention of the Nice Treaty?

Does the Commission regard the use of animals for entertainment under the guise of cultural exchange as appropriate in this day and age?

What cities/regions are participating in the Minotauro project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Community Initiative Interreg EIC seeks to promote interregional cooperation between regional and local authorities across the whole of the EU territory. It is financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and part-financed by the national partners in each project.

An application for Community part-financing under Interreg EIC was submitted for the Minotauro project under a call for proposals, the closing date of which was 10 January 2003 and in respect of which the selection process has not yet been completed. It was presented under the Interreg EIC South programme and its lead agency is located in Spain. It involves nine partners, from four Member States (Greece, Spain, France and Portugal). The partners are local authorities (mayor's offices in Cuéllar, San Sebastián de los Reyes, Moura, Beziers, Ciudad Rodrigo, Segorbe, Ampuero, Soria and Lychnostatis).

According to information available to the Commission, the intention of the promoters of the Minotauro project is not to finance bullfighting activities directly but rather to network their towns from a cultural point of view. Moreover, no mention is made in the application file submitted of bullfighting activities.

Matters concerned with the priority to be given to concrete projects or the advisability of such projects have to be considered by the entities which, under Community law and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, are responsible for examining, assessing and selecting projects to be financed by the Structural Funds, i.e. programming committees made up of representatives from the Member States, the regions and other relevant bodies.

Moreover, the rules governing bullfighting and related activities fall within the competence of the Member States.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. April Jean ANDERSON.

No. COA15-269.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Exhibit
      10.68




**AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO**




**SEPARATION
      AGREEMENT AND RELEASE**




This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Separation
      Agreement and Release dated February 12, 2007 (the “Agreement”) between Tier
      Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”) and Todd F. Vucovich (the “Employee”)
      (collectively the “parties”) is effective as of November 15, 2007.




WHEREAS,
      the parties wish to amend the
      Agreement;




NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the
      promises and conditions set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby
      acknowledged, the Company and the Employee hereby amend the Agreement as
      follows:




1. Separation
      Date.  The Employee’s effective date of separation from the
      Company shall be December 31, 2007 (the “Separation Date”).





2. Fulfillment
      of
      Obligations.  Provided Employee remains an employee of the Company
      through December 31, 2007, Employee shall be deemed to have fulfilled all
      obligations under the Agreement and shall be entitled to all benefits
      thereunder.





3. Separation
      Pay.  Upon the Separation Date, the Company agrees to pay the
      Employee the separation payments as set forth in Section 4 of the
      Agreement.  In addition to those amounts, the Company shall pay
      Employee $10,000, less all applicable state and federal taxes and
      withholdings.





4. Counterparts.  This
      Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement may be executed in two (2) signature
      counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which
      taken
      together shall constitute one and the same instrument.





All
      other terms, provisions and definitions set forth in the Agreement remain the
      same.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, all parties have set their hand to this Agreement as of the
      date set forth below.




TIER
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.





By:Ronald
                L. RossettiChairman
                and Chief Executive OfficerDated:







TODD
                F. VUCOVICH




Dated:
STATE v. Jonathan Douglas RICHARDSON.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 5, 2016.

Paul M. Green, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

David Weiss, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of February 2016 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of February 2016."
exv4w2







Exhibit 4.2








	Sky-mobi Limited
this is certify that
is/are the registered shareholders of:
NO OF SHARES
TYPE OF SHARE
per value
common
date of record
certificate number
paid
the above shares are subject to the memorandum and articles of association of the company and
transerabel in accordance therewith
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR / SECRETARY
Jill CRABTREE, Employee v. EVP PROPERTIES, LLC, Employer, Non-Insured. North Carolina Industrial Commission v. EVP Properties, LLC, Employer, Non-Insured, and James Malatesta and Brian J. Dempsey, individually.

No. 190P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of June 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 5th of November 2015."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31151

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DELBERT TROY PATIN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:06-CR-203-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Delbert Troy Patin

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Patin has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18326]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35, agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 17, 2005. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e3a1f08171a212c110d0a151b0c3e11131c501b110e50191108"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ca8eabbca3ae9598a5b9bea1afb88aa5a7a8e4afa5bae4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a> or fax at 202-2395-7285, Office of Management and 
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79db6b4a6a2b2bbbeb9b2f9a0bfbea3b297a4b5b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8dc7eceefcf8e8e1e4e3e8a3fae5e4f9e8cdfeefeca3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a> (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: Entrepreneurial Development Impact Study.
    Form Number: SBA Form 2214.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Description of Respondents: SBA Clients.
    Responses: 7,378.
    Annual Burden: 7,378.

Jacqueline K. White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 05-18326 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.24
 CONSENT OF M. BUTCHER
   1.
    
    The technical report dated May 1, 2008 entitled Pueblo Viejo Gold
Project, Dominican Republic Technical Report (the Pueblo Viejo
Report);2.
    
    The technical report dated March 10, 2009 entitled Peñasquito Project
Technical Report (the Peñasquito Report); and3.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Pueblo Viejo Report, the Peñasquito
Report, the Pueblo Viejo Project and the Peñasquito Project, and the
properties described therein.
  /s/ Murray ButcherName:
    Murray Butcher, MAusIMMTitle:
    Group Metallurgist, Goldcorp, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 707 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 707

To provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive 
  a Pell Grant by suspending the tuition sensitivity provision in the 
                          Pell Grant program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2007

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive 
  a Pell Grant by suspending the tuition sensitivity provision in the 
                          Pell Grant program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pell Grant Equity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. TUITION SENSITIVITY.

    Section 401(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1070a(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
    ``(C) This paragraph shall not apply to the determination of a 
student's basic grant for the 2007-2008 academic year.''.

SEC. 3. GUARANTEE AGENCY COLLECTION RETENTION.

    Clause (ii) of section 428(c)(6)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(6)(A)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(ii) an amount equal to 24 percent of 
                        such payments for use in accordance with 
                        section 422B, except that--
                                    ``(I) beginning October 1, 2003 and 
                                ending September 30, 2007, this 
                                subparagraph shall be applied by 
                                substituting `23 percent' for `24 
                                percent'; and
                                    ``(II) beginning October 1, 2007 
                                and ending September 30, 2008, this 
                                subparagraph shall be applied by 
                                substituting `22 percent' for `24 
                                percent'.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     I, Neil M. Ebner, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
UBICS, Inc., do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of UBICS, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m),

     and

     (2) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
UBICS, Inc.

March 28, 2003


                             By: /s/ Neil M. Ebner
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Neil M. Ebner
                             Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
DARBY v. CAMPBELL, et al.

No. 171P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Arthur Donald Darby, Jr., Fayetteville, for Darby, Arthur Donald (Jr.).

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of May 2015 by Plaintiff to Suppress against Fairmont Police Department, Hamlet Police Department, Robeson County Court, John Doe:

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

(2004/C 33 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0772/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Ruling of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMA), Case No 2269, concerning the shrimp wholesale trade and fisheries regarding price agreements

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of the decision of 14 January 2003 whereby the Netherlands Competition Authority (Nma) has imposed fines totalling EUR 13,781 million on eight wholesale traders in shrimps, and four Dutch, three German and one Danish producer organisation in the shrimp fishery industry, for infringements of the European and Dutch competition rules prohibiting cartels. In its decision the NMa has established, first of all, that the producer organisations and the wholesaler traders entered into agreements with each other to limit the size of the catch of North-Sea shrimps and to set minimum prices and secondly, that these agreements were also implemented in the period from January 1998 until February 2000.

The Commission has frequent contacts with producer organisations by way of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. The questions at issue in the present instance were discussed at the Advisory Committee on 26 February 2003. Furthermore, these questions were discussed with Member States at the meeting of the Management Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products on 7 March 2003. The Commission is ready to hold further discussions with interested parties if they so wish.

The Commission does not concur with the Honourable Member's opinion that the NMa ruling is at odds with European policy. It is correct that the main objective of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture by way of Regulation No 104/2000 (1) is to ensure that the production and marketing of fishery products take account of the need to support sustainable fishing. It is, therefore, designed to comprise measures which ensure a better match between supply and demand. To this end, producer organisations have been entrusted with specific tasks. This is in line with the sustainability focus of the Common Fisheries Policy, a feature which has been clearly strengthened by the most recent package of decisions on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which the Council adopted in December 2002. It is clear, however, that there cannot be a conflict between sustainability requirements and competition rules as long as producer organisations stick to acting within the bounds of their lawful tasks under the Common Fisheries Policy. Inversely, sustainability considerations may not be used as an argument to justify practices, such as collusive action between producer organisations and wholesale traders concerning minimum prices and catch limits, which fall outside the lawful tasks of producer organisations as specified in the relevant legal instruments and which violate the European competition rules.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, OJ L 17, 21.1.2000.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Tony Levatte SMITH.

No. 237P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Tony Levatte Smith, for Smith, Tony Levatte.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 13th of July 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
Michael H. COOK, Plaintiff, v. Ginny Elizabeth TURLINGTON, Defendant.

No. COA14-956.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.14****CONSENT OF B. T. HENNESSEY**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the followingreport(s) and to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including, as anexpert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The technical report dated February 13, 2009, entitled “An UpdatedTechnical Report on the Mineral Reserves of Minera Alumbrera Ltd.,Catamarca, Argentina” (the “Alumbrera Report”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Alumbrera Report and the AlumbreraMine, and the properties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ B. Terrence Hennessey     Name:  B. Terrence Hennessey, P. Geo.     Micon International Limited
IN RE M.R.M.

No. COA08-537.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (07JT327).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
NUMBER 13-07-110-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

COOLIDGE D. GERDES, Appellant,

v.

COLLINS FINANCIAL SERVICES,

INC., AS ASSIGNEE OF CHASE

MANHATTAN BANK, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

of Victoria County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez

Appellee, Collins Financial Services, Inc., as assignee of Chase Manhattan Bank,

brought suit against appellant, Coolidge D. Gerdes. According to Collins, Chase

Manhattan Bank issued its MasterCard charge card to Gerdes. Gerdes then used the card
 T EX. R. APP. P. 38.1. 1

Id. 38.1(h). 2

2

to purchase various items, defaulted by failing to make payments due under the account,

and accumulated a balance due of $8,782.14 plus accrued interest. The trial court granted

Collins’s motion for summary judgment, awarding Collins the principal amount of

$8,782.14, prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,344.47, and attorney’s fees in the

amount of $4,391.00. Gerdes is now before this Court appealing the trial court’s judgment.

We affirm.

Gerdes first filed his pro se appellate brief with this Court on April 13, 2007. The

Court directed him to amend his brief because it failed to comply with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.1. Gerdes then filed an amended appellate brief on May 7, 2007. 1

In the amended brief, Gerdes raises a laundry list of issues, partly consisting of the

following: (1) the trial court erred in denying his oral request for recusal; (2) the trial judge

erred in not requiring opposing counsel to prove he was authorized to represent Collins;

and (3) the trial court erred by failing to fulfill his request for findings of fact and conclusions

of law. All issues raised by Gerdes, however, fail to “contain clear and concise argument

for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities.” Furthermore, Gerdes 2

requests relief that this Court cannot provide. Gerdes specifically asks the Court to (1)

disbar the trial judge and opposing counsel; (2) award him attorney’s fees for his selfrepresentation, though he does not purport to be a licensed attorney; (3) charge the trial

judge and opposing counsel with fraud and treason; and (4) award him $10,000 for

damages.
3

Because Gerdes did not properly brief any issue raised on appeal, he presents

nothing for our review. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ,

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 28th day of August, 2008.