alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                         5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            1,044,908
<SECURITIES>                                      14,573,134
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4,458,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  20,076,766
<PP&E>                                            1,935,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (1,024,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    20,988,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8,331,642
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        12,656,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      20,988,204
<SALES>                                           18,678,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  18,678,601
<CGS>                                             10,940,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     10,940,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,381,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                80,929
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5,276,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,123,059
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,153,230
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TAMARA ANGELA GRIFFIN,

Appellant,

v.

JAMES HENRY THOMAS, SR.,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00003

- CV

Appeal from the

383rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2020DCM1006)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. It

appearing to th is Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no other

order with respect to costs. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 3 TH DAY OF JUNE 2024.

J EFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
**Exhibit 99.12****CONSENT OF R. RIVERA**     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 March 10, 2009, entitled “PeñasquitoProject Technical Report” (the “PeñasquitoReport”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Peñasquito Report, the Peñasquito Project and the Los Filos Mine, and theproperties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Reynaldo Rivera     Name:  Reynaldo Rivera, MAusIMM     Luismin, S.A. de C.V.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 51816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17338]



[[Page 51816]]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may obtain 
copies of agreements by contacting the Commission's Office of 
Agreements at 202-523-5793 or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dda9afbcb9b8bcb3bcb1a4aeb4ae9dbbb0bef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86f2f4e7e2e3e7e8e7eafff5eff5c6e0ebe5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the 
Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 
days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 011847-002.
    Title: Pacific Gulf Express Agreement.
    Parties: CMA CGM, S.A.; P&O Nedlloyd Limited; and P&O Nedlloyd 
B.V.
    Filing Party: Neal M. Mayer, Esq.; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman; 1000 
Connecticut Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment increases the size of the vessels 
deployed under the agreement and makes corresponding adjustments in 
the space allocation.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
    Dated: August 26, 2005.
Karen V. Gregory,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17338 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1067/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1067/2014 of 3 October 2014 laying down form and content of the accounting information            to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD as well as for            monitoring and forecasting purposes (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1067/2014                     

# of 3 October 2014

# laying down form and content of the accounting information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance                        of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1532 of 15 September 2015 laying down form and content of the accounting information                                 to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD as well as for                                 monitoring and forecasting purposes.
# CE2004088EN.01063601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/636 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/636

---

(2004/C 88 E/0652)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3091/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Peter Shaw/Georgia

Subject:

Would the Commission confirm that the Georgian authorities, including the Prosecutor-General, are actively considering the need to investigate the circumstances surrounding the kidnap of Peter Shaw?

Is it the case that two individuals connected with kidnapping have been released, allegedly for lack of evidence? In a previous answer (E-2700/03 (1)) on the Peter Shaw case, the Commission indicated that the Georgian authorities would provide a written report on their investigations. Is this the case, and has this detailed report been forwarded to the Commission?

1

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

(7 November 2003)

The Commission continues to use every opportunity to stress to the Georgian authorities the importance it attaches to the identification and bringing to justice of the perpetrators of Peter Shaw's kidnapping. The Commission expects the Georgian authorities to maintain their commitment to the investigation into his kidnapping.

The Commission has no information concerning the Honourable Member's question as to whether two individuals connected with the kidnapping have been released.

The Commission confirms that it has requested a detailed written report on the state of the investigations into the kidnapping from the Georgian authorities. The Georgian authorities have indicated that they will respond to this request once they have sufficient information to bring a case to court. The Commission will continue to press for such a request.

The Member of the Commission responsible for External Relations continues to pay very close attention to this matter and has personally raised it, including the need for a written report, with the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Irakli Menagarashvili when he attended the recent Union-Georgia Cooperation Council.

---

(1)  See page 433.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40729 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JEROME ARTHUR CHAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:93-CR-25-1 - - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * On appeal after remand, Jerome Arthur Chavis challenges the district court's denial of the motion to suppress by arguing that his continued detention after the traffic stop exceeded the bounds of the Fourth Amendment. For essentially the same reasons as explained by the district court, see United States v. Chavis , 902 F. Supp. 111 (E.D. Tex. 1995), we AFFIRM.
#### In the Matter of Mariana Rivera et al., Respondents, v Israel Martinez, Appellant, and Frederic M. Umane et al., Constituting the Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondents, et al., Respondent. In the Matter of Israel Martinez, Appellant, v Board of Elections in the City of New *320York et al., Respondents.

[799 NYS2d 899]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), entered August 15, 2005, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the reasons stated by Seewald, J. No opinion. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Yolanda Marie INMAN.

No. COA15-510.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General.

*475Robert W. Oast, Jr., City Attorney, for City of Asheville.

Daniel G. Clodfelter, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

T. Randolph Perkins, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

Jonathan M. Watkins, Charlotte.

Jason G. Idilbi, Charlotte.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, Robin T. Currin, City of Asheville Attorney, for City of Asheville.

William Clarke, Asheville, for State of North Carolina.

Stephen W. Petersen, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for City of Asheville.

Allegra Collins, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edward J. Coyne, III, Greenville, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Wilmington, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Gabriel Du Sablon, for City of Wilson.

James R. Cauley, III, Wilson, for City of Wilson.

Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities, Ms. Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

The following order has been entered on the motion to dismiss the appeal filed on the 7th of December 2015 by State of NC:

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-4355 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD COPELAND, a/k/a Big Eddie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-PMD)

Submitted: January 10, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Carlton R. Bourne, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Edward Copeland of conspiracy to

distribute powder cocaine and cocaine base (“crack”) and possession

with intent to distribute crack, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) (2000), and possession of ammunition by a

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), (e)(1)

(2000). The district court sentenced Copeland to life

imprisonment, and Copeland timely appealed. Copeland asserts on

appeal that the district court erroneously denied his motions to

suppress evidence and statements obtained following the service of

a subsequently invalidated arrest warrant. The district court

found the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated

in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied. We affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear

error and the court’s legal determinations de novo. See Ornelas v.

United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691 (1996); United States v. Rusher,

966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). The evidence is viewed in the

light most favorable to the Government. See United States v.

Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).

If a warrant is found to be defective, the evidence

obtained from the defective warrant may nevertheless be admitted

under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. See Leon,

468 U.S. at 922-23. Evidence seized pursuant to a defective

warrant will not be suppressed unless: (1) the affidavit contains
*

We deny Copeland’s pro se motion for copies of documents.

- 3 -

knowing or reckless falsity; (2) the magistrate acts as a rubber

stamp for the police; (3) the affidavit does not provide the

magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence

of probable cause; or (4) the warrant is so facially deficient that

an officer could not reasonably rely on it. United States v.

Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 121-22 (4th Cir. 1996). With these standards

in mind, we find no error. We therefore affirm the district

court’s conclusion that the good faith exception was applicable. 

Accordingly, we affirm Copeland’s convictions.* 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.

AFFIRMED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00601-CR

NO. 03-07-00602-CR

Richard Vernon Amendt Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. A-06-1244-S & A-06-1245-S, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Richard Vernon Amendt, Sr. of two counts of aggravated

sexual assault of a child and assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2008). The trial court entered a judgment in accordance

with the jury’s verdicts, sentencing appellant to concurrent twenty-five year sentences. Appellant’s

appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at

743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d

684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Appellant’s attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the right to
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 1

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se brief has been filed.

We have considered the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the jury and the

procedures that were observed and find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: August 29, 2008

Do Not Publish
STATE v. Ronald Michael McCRARY.

No. 413A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

John L. Wait, High Point, for McCrary, Ronald Michael.

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

James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 12th day of August 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Cornelius McNEILL.

No. 427P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Peter A. Regulski, Assistant Attorney Geneal, for State of North Carolina.

James Cornelius McNeill, for McNeill, James Cornelius.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of December 2015 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 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."
# CE2004078EN.01019501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/195

---

(2004/C 78 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Specific programme for research

Subject:

In the European Commission explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006) (1), it is said that in the course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent of the donors has been obtained.

1

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the Commission confirm:

| — | Who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested? |
| --- | --- |

—

Who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

| — | How will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development? |
| --- | --- |

—

How will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

(7 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the context of the Commission proposal (2) and the condition (e) of the annex it refers to, the ‘donor(s)’ refers to the person(s) who is legally responsible for the human embryo created as a result of medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation designed to induce pregnancy and no longer to be used for that purpose (supernumerary embryo).

2

The person(s) legally responsible is defined differently in national legislations regulating in vitro fertilisation. For that reason, the Commission proposal (3), in the context of subsidiarity, makes reference to national legislation which imposes specific requirements concerning the consent procedure of the donor(s).

3

---

(1)  COM(2003) 390 final.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 390.

2

(3)  COM(2003) 390 final — Proposal for a Council decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006).

3

---