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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-6827 

FRANK M. NEFF,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOE SEACRIST,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:08-cv-0891-RDB)

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

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Neff, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Frank M. Neff appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Neff v. Seacrist, No. 1:08-cv-0891-RDB (D. Md.

April 14, 2008). 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
Exhibit 99.10

CONSENT OF IAN GLAZIER

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 14, 2011, as amended March 30, 2011, entitled Red Lake Gold Operation, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Red Lake Report); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold Mines, 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/ Ian GlazierName: Ian Glazier, P. Eng.
<PAGE>

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

 We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement of
Applied Digital Access, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated January 18, 1997 on
our audits of the  financial  statements  and  financial  statement  schedule of
Applied Digital Access, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years
ended December 31, 1996,  1995 and 1994,  which report is included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Applied Digital Access,  Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1996.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand

San Diego, California
March 31, 1997
State of North Carolina v. Keith Vontrell Jones

No. COA15-935

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

NO ERROR.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed October 5, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01193-CV 

IN RE ALVIN STEVEN BROWN, SR., Relator 

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-0900704-J 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court generally 

denied his application for writ of habeas corpus. We lack jurisdiction over the petition for writ 

of mandamus. 

This Court has not been given general supervisory control over district and county courts. 

Texas Emp. Ins. Ass’n v. Kirby, 150 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1941, no writ); 

see also Guillory v. Davis, 527 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1975, no writ). 

While the courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals in some post-conviction proceedings, Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 

808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), the Court has no jurisdiction in postconviction habeas corpus proceedings brought under article 11.07. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2014); In re Turk, No. 14–09–00129–CR, 2009 WL 396197, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Bailey, No. 
 –2– 

14–06–00841–CV, 2006 WL 2827249, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2001, orig. proceeding). “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts 

referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 

at 718. Consequently, any complaints about action or inaction on a matter related to a postconviction petition for writ of habeas corpus must be brought by mandamus to the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals and not to this Court. In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d at 717. 

We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. 

151193F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 – Euro‐Information v OHIM (CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION,
CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME)**

**(Joined Cases T-211/06, T-213/06, T-245/06, T-155/07 and T-178/07)**

Community trade mark – Applications for Community word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of distinctive character acquired through use – Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-36, 42)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTIONS brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May (Case R 0068/2006-1), 12 June (Case R 0066/2006‐1), 5 July 2006 (Case R 0067/2006-1), 28 February (Case R 1046/2006‐1) and 15 March 2007 (Case R 0067/2006‐1), concerning registration of the signs CYBERGESTION (Case T‐213/06), CYBERCREDIT (Case T‐211/06), CYBERGUICHET (Case T‐245/06), CYBERBOURSE (Case T‐155/07) and CYBERHOME (Case T‐178/07) as Community trade marks. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade marks: | Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) |
| Community trade marks concerned: | Word marks CYBERCREDIT, CYBERGESTION, CYBERGUICHET, CYBERBOURSE and CYBERHOME in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application Nos 4114336, 4114716, 4114575, 4114682 and 4114666) |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registrations refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeals dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the actions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Européenne de traitement de l’information (Euro-Information) to pay the costs. |
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-60449

Summary Calendar

ROBERT SUPINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SIEMENS ENERGY AND AUTOMATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(3:94CV225LN)

January 16, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Supinger sued his employer, Siemens Energy, claiming he was

discharged because of his age in violation of the ADEA and that

subsequently, after performing work for Siemens Energy as a

temporary consultant in the employment of Forse Temporary Agency,

he was terminated again for having filed an EEOC claim. Siemens
2

Energy filed a motion for summary judgment and the district court

granted the motion.

We have carefully read the briefs and the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the summary judgment record, including the

deposition testimony of Supinger. For the reasons thoroughly and

carefully set forth by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion

and Order filed on June 23, 1995, we are satisfied that the

district judge correctly determined (1) that Supinger failed to

raise a genuine issue of material fact as to his age being a

determinative factor in his initial discharge and (2) that Supinger

failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to retaliation for

filing an EEOC claim being a reason for the termination of his

temporary consulting contract.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the final judgment in favor of Siemens

Energy filed on June 29, 1995.

AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of F.C.D., a Juvenile.

No. COA15-1178.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
State of North Carolina v. Reid Wilburn McLaughlin

No. 137P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, For McLaughlin, Reid Wilburn.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 29th of April 2016 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 31 , 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00105

- CV

Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas and John Burpo, Appellant s

v.
Mike Sheffield, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TR AVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, RO SE, AND GOODWIN AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND DISMISSED IN PART; REMANDED IN

PART

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on January 31 , 2013 . Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial

court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the portion of th e trial court’s order denying the

motion to dismiss with respect to claims based on comments made among CLEAT members and

will dismiss those claims pursuant to the TCPA. We affirm the order denying the motion to

dismiss Sheffield’s c laim based on comments made to the district attorney and other unnamed

persons. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including

consideration by the trial court of an award of costs and fees relating to the motion to dis miss.

The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner, v. Kenneth SHIELDS, Respondent.

No. COA 15-154.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2009069EN.01003002.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi — Belgium) — SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupement des clubs de football européens v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

(Case C-243/06) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/56)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
NO. 07-03-0172-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	JUNE 9, 2003

	______________________________

	JIMMY BARELA,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 45,848-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

	Appellant Jimmy Barela, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it.  The cause was previously abated; we now reinstate it.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Brian Quinn

Do not publish.					   Justice
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 – Coats Holdings and Coats v Commission**

**(Case T-36/05)**

Competition – Cartels – European haberdashery market (needles) – Product market sharing – Geographic market sharing – Assessment of evidence – Participation in meetings – Tripartite agreement – Fine – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances

1.                     *Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement consisting in the conclusion of an anti‐competitive
agreement – Compliance with the principle of the presumption on innocence – Degree of probative force required for the Commission’s
evidence (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 68, 70-72, 74)*

2.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation of an undertaking in a meeting of the parties
to a planned cartel – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the subsequent cartel – Condition (Art.
81(1) EC) (see paras 90-91, 96)*

3.                     *Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Undertaking which facilitated the entry into force of an anti‐competitive
agreement which required action on its part – Circumstance permitting the conclusion that it participated in the agreement
– Merely being informed of the existence of the agreement not sufficient (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 105, 110, 117, 119-120,
168)*

4.                     *Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria defined in guidelines issued by the Commission – Seriousness and duration
of the infringement – Attenuating circumstances – Passive or ‘follow-my-leader’ role of the undertaking (Art. 81(1) EC; Commission
Notice 98/C 9/03) (see paras 199-200, 204-207, 210, 212)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F-1/38.338 – PO/Needles) and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 4221 final of 26 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F‐1/38.338 – PO/Needles) in so far as the Decision finds that the applicants infringed Article 81(1) EC after 13 March 1997; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants under Article 2 of the Decision at EUR 20 million; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders the applicants to bear two thirds of their own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the applicants. |
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW149420] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas lease. 

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW149420 from Beard Oil Company for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The lessees have agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively. The lessees has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW149420 effective December 1, 2004, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the lands.                 

Pamela J. Lewis, 

Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 05-18457 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
STATE v. Michael Orlando COOK.

No. 254P08-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Michael Orlando Cook, Lumberton, for Cook, Michael Orlando.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of February 2016 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
EXHIBIT 10.14


               This loan replaces the note dated October 16, 1998.

April 16, 1999

Carl Berg
10050 Bandley Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014

BORROWER: Videonics, Inc.
LENDER:        Carl Berg

This letter is our promise to repay.................................. $1,035,000

cash  loaned to  Borrower.  This loan is due and  payable on January  16,  2001.
Interest will be due on the outstanding  balance for the actual days outstanding
from January 16, 1999 at an annual interest rate of 8.0%.  Interest will be paid
at maturity on January 16, 2001.

       DEFAULT. Borrower will be in default if any of the following happens: (a)
       Borrower fails to make any payment when due. (b) Borrower  defaults under
       any loan,  extension  of credit,  security  agreement,  purchase or sales
       agreement,  or any other  agreement,  in favor of any other  creditor  or
       person  that  may  materially  affect  any  of  Borrower's   property  or
       Borrower's ability to repay this loan or perform  Borrower's  obligations
       under this loan. (c) Borrower becomes insolvent,  a receiver is appointed
       for any part of Borrower's property, Borrower makes an assignment for the
       benefit of creditors,  or any proceeding is commenced  either by Borrower
       or against Borrower under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws.


LENDER'S  RIGHTS.  Upon default,  Lender may declare the entire unpaid principal
balance of this loan and all accrued unpaid interest  immediately  due,  without
notice, and then Borrower will immediately pay that amount.  Lender may delay or
forgo  enforcing  any of its rights or remedies  under this loan without  losing
them.

GENERAL:  This note has been  delivered  to Lender and accepted by Lender in the
State of  California.  If there is a  lawsuit,  Borrower  agrees  upon  Lender's
request to submit to the  jurisdiction of the courts of Santa Clara County,  the
State of California.  This loan shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California.



BORROWER: Videonics, Inc.

By: /s/ James A. McNeill
    ----------------------------------------
    James A. McNeill, Senior Vice President

                                       16
----

(2004/C 78 E/0780)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1945/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Amendment of the Dutch Media Act

The Netherlands Government has tabled a bill to amend the Media Act which would increase the number of stations which cable companies are required to relay by a maximum of two television stations and five radio stations. This would mean that, out of the average total of 32 television stations which a cable company relays, 17 would be relayed compulsorily, while out of the average total of 32 radio stations relayed, the same would apply to 30.

In connection with the amendment of the Media Act, the Netherlands Government has stated that it is not necessary to alter the relay obligations which the Media Act imposes on cable companies so as to bring them into line with Article 31 of the Universal Services Directive, because the aim of the Media Act (to protect diversity) is different from that of the new European framework.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

----

(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and user's rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, OJ L 108, 24.4.2002.

----
Order entered May 17 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 11

- 01272

- CV

MICKEY TURNER , Appellant

V.

NICOLE ROBERSON , Appellee

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. 03

- 05790

- Y



### O RDER

Appellant Mickey Turner’s January 11, 2013 motion to render decision is DENIED as

moot.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE