alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 38****CERTIFICATION****Pursuantto Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, C. Kevin McArthur, certify that:     1.     I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc.; and     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.Date:May 10, 2007         /s/ C. Kevin McArthur   C. Kevin McArthur   President and Chief Executive Officer  
 

 
**CERTIFICATION****Pursuantto Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     I, Lindsay Hall, certify that:     1.     I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc.; and     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;Date:May 10, 2007         /s/ Lindsay Hall   Lindsay Hall   Executive Vice President and
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Arktouros v Commission**

**(Case T-260/06)**

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 – Removal of financial assistance granted for an ecological project – Decision ending the project and ordering reimbursement of sums paid by way of an advance – Confirmatory measure – Expiry of the period for bringing an action – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see paras
52, 55‐56)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming two decisions not challenged within the time-limits (Art. 230
EC) (see paras 57‐59)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2006) 3181 final of 6 July 2006 ending a project concerning conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park (Greece) (Ellas – LIFE03/NAT/GR/000089) and ordering reimbursement of the advance paid to the applicant in respect of the Community financial assistance which had been granted to it in implementation of Commission Decision C(2003) 2919 final of 4 September 2003. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Etairia prostasias kai diakhirisis fisikou perivallontos kai agrias zois ‘Arktouros’ to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18539]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,788]


Pentair, Inc., Wicor, Inc., Water, Spa and Bath Division, 
Including On-Site Leased Workers of Volt, Personnel Plus and Apple One 
South El Monte, CA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance on April 27, 2005, applicable to workers of Pentair, Inc., 
Water, Spa and Bath Division, including on-site leased workers of VOLT, 
Personnel Plus and Apple One, South El Monte, California. The notice 
was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 25861).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm.
    New information shows that Pentair purchased Wicor, Inc. in August 
2004 that all workers separated from employment at the subject firm had 
their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax 
account for Wicor, Inc.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Pentair, Inc., Water, Spa and Bath Division, including on-
site leased workers of VOLT, Personnel Plus and Apple One, South El 
Monte, California who were adversely affected by a shift in production 
to China and Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-56,788 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Pentair, Inc., Wicor, Inc., including on-site 
leased workers of VOLT, Personnel Plus, and Apple One, South El 
Monte, California, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after March 21, 2004, through April 27, 2007, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    I further determine that all workers of Pentair, Inc., Water Spa 
and Bath Division, including on-site leased workers of VOLT, Personnel 
Plus and Apple One, South Monte, California, are denied eligibility to 
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of September 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-18539 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Form S-8 and the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-07295) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1996 Director's Stock Option Plan and Employees and Consultants Stock Option
Agreement/Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-58303) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-87369) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-44736)
pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-86644) pertaining to the 1996 Directors' Stock Option Plan and 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, the Post-Effective Amendment No. 6 on Form S-3 to Form SB-2 (Form SB-2 No. 333-476-LA) for
the registration of 4,477,402 shares of common stock and 328,500 warrants to purchase common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-88051) for the registration
of 2,014,036 shares of common stock, the Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-52326) for the registration of 697,533 shares of common stock, the
Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-95177) for the registration of 136,130 shares of common stock, and the Form S-3 (Registration
No. 333-100707) for the registration of 3,930,800 shares of common stock and related prospectuses, of our report dated February 18, 2003, except for Note 12 as to
which the date is February 26, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SuperGen, Inc. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002.

|                                     |  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|Palo Alto, California
March 27, 2003 |  |                      

---

QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina v. Josh Hilmi AKBAS, Defendant.

No. COA15-943.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Susannah P. Holloway, for the State.

Law Office of Aaron Young, PLLC, by Aaron Young, for defendant-appellant.

GEER, Judge.

Defendant Josh Hilmi Akbas appeals from judgments entered upon his plea of no contest to four counts of breaking and entering and the status offense of habitual breaking and entering. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

On 18 August 2014, defendant was indicted on four counts of breaking and entering and four counts of larceny after breaking and entering, stemming from a series of robberies committed in Hamptonville and Yadkinville, North Carolina. Subsequently, on 26 January 2015, defendant was indicted for the status offense of habitual breaking and entering.

On 28 January 2015, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, defendant pled no contest to four counts of breaking and entering and habitual breaking and entering. In exchange, the State dismissed a total of 10 charges which were pending against defendant. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court consolidated the offenses into two judgments and sentenced defendant to two consecutive active sentences of 33 to 52 months of imprisonment. Defendant filed a timely written notice of appeal.

Counsel appointed to represent defendant is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal and asks that this Court conduct its own review of the record for possible prejudicial error. He has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has complied with the requirements of *Anders v. California,* 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), and *State v. Kinch,* 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by advising defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so.

Defendant has filed a *pro se* brief raising the issue whether the imposition of an increased sentence pursuant to the status offense of habitual breaking and entering violated defendant's due process and double jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment. However, this constitutional argument was not raised below, and "[i]t is well settled that constitutional issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." *State v. Wright,* 200 N.C.App. 578, 584, 685 S.E.2d 109, 114 (2009), *appeal dismissed,* 363 N.C. 812, 693 S.E.2d 142 (2010). Accordingly, we will not consider the merits of defendant's argument.

In accordance with *Anders,* we have fully examined the record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom or whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. We have examined the record for possible prejudicial error and have found none. Because defendant has raised only an issue which was not preserved for appellate review, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

Judges McCULLOUGH and ZACHARY concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).
# C_2008051EN.01004101.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008 — Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE)

(Case T-9/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE - Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 51/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Nordemann, C.-R. Haarmann, F. Schwab and M. Nentwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Indo Internacional SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Currel Aguilà, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00036-CR

DAVID ALLEN STEEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1442404D)

October 4, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete the 

assessment of court costs of $289. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Wade Birdwell_________________

 Justice Wade Birdwell
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,977

EX PARTE PHILLIP D. DENBOW, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-396-008298-0828463-A IN THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and delivery of a controlled substance,

methamphetamine, and sentenced to thirty-five (35) years’ imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The

Second Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Denbow v. State, No. 2-03-102-CR (Tex. App.

– Fort Worth, August 24, 2004, pet. ref’d, untimely filed). 

We remanded this application for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning
Applicant’s contentions that his convictions were obtained in violation of double jeopardy because

he was convicted of two offenses arising from the single sale of a single controlled substance, and

that his double jeopardy claim was not barred because he did not knowingly and intelligently

relinquish his double jeopardy rights in prior proceedings.

The trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that Applicant’s two

convictions for the single specific sale of the same quantity of methamphetamine violated his

protection against multiple punishments and that this claim is not barred from consideration because

the violation is clearly apparent from the record. The trial court recommends vacating the conviction

for delivery of a controlled substance. We find, therefore, that Applicant’s convictions violate the

Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. We deny Applicant’s claim relating to

his conviction for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and grant his claim for

relief from the jeopardy-barred conviction for delivery of a controlled substance.

Delivered: August 20, 2008

Do Not Publish
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136711 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136711 

 COA: 284477 

Wayne CC: 07-005919

SYLVESTER WATKINS,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2416 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2416 of 17 December 2015 recognising certain areas of the United States of America            as being free from Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (notified under document C(2015) 9185) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2416                     

# of 17 December 2015

# recognising certain areas of the United States of America as being free from *Agrilus planipennis* Fairmaire                     

# *(notified under document C(2015) 9185)* (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/204 of 3 February 2017 authorising Member States to provide for a temporary derogation                                 from certain provisions of Council Directive 2000/29/EC in respect of ash wood originating or processed in the United States                                 of America, and repealing Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2416 recognising certain areas of the United States of America as                                 being free from Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (notified under document C(2017) 420).
EXHIBIT 32.1.

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Tom Hofer, Chief Executive Officer of Vendalux Corporation (the "Registrant")
do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
period March 31, 2006 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

                             By:
                              -------------------------------
                             Tom Hofer
                             Chief Executive Officer

July 14, 2006

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Vendalux Corporation and will be retained by Vendalux Corporation
and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Tom Hofer, Chief Accounting Officer of Vendalux Corporation (the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
period March 31, 2006 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

                              By:
                               -----------------------------------
                              Tom Hofer
                            Chief Accounting Officer

July 14, 2006

 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Vendalux Corporation and will be retained by Vendalux Corporation
and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
First Amendment to the Mabtech License Agreement dated January 31, 2000



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 

LICENSE AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the License Agreement (“License Agreement”) is made effective as of January 31, 2000 (the “Effective Date”) by and between
MABTECH AB, formed under the laws of Sweden (“MAB”) and SEATTLE GENETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“SGI”). 
 RECITALS 
 MAB and SGI entered into the License Agreement dated as of
June 14, 1998 pursuant to which MAB agreed to provide SGI access to the S2C6 antibody and the exclusive license to make, use, offer for sale, sell, import or otherwise distribute products that embody the S2C6 antibody. 

MAB and SGI now wish to amend the License Agreement in certain respects as hereinafter provided and in consideration for the amendments
made herein, SGI shall pay MAB Twenty-five Thousand U.S. Dollars (U.S.$25,000) within ten (10) days of execution of this Amendment. 
 Except as otherwise provided herein, definitions of capitalized words shall be those set forth in the License Agreement. 
 The parties now agree as follows: 
 AMENDMENT 

 

	 	A.	Section 4.2 of the License Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“4.2 Milestone Payment.    SGI shall pay MAB a one-time milestone payment of Seventy Thousand U.S.
Dollars (U.S.$70,000) within thirty (30) days following SGI’s first filing of an investigational new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or an equivalent filing in one or more European countries, covering a
Licensed Product. In addition, SGI shall pay MAB a one-time milestone payment of Fifty Thousand U.S. Dollars (U.S.$50,000) within thirty (30) days following the commencement of the first Phase III clinical trial covering a Licensed
Product.” 
  

	 	B.	Section 4.3.1 of the License Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


“4.3.1 SGI shall pay MAB a royalty equal to one percent (1%) on net Sales of Licensed Products, commending with the First
Commercial Sale of a Licensed Product.” 
 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 

Except as provided otherwise herein, all other terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written. 
  

			
	SEATTLE GENETICS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/: H. Perry
Fell




			
		
	Name:	 	 H. Perry
Fell




			
		
	Title:	 	 President




 

			
	MABTECH AB
		
	By:	 	 /s/: Staffan
Paulic




			
		
	Name:	 	 Staffan
Paulic




			
		
	Title:	 	 Man.
Dir.




			
	Its:	 	 President
In the Matter of C.N.H-P., M.S.N.P., A.D.S., M.C-N.H-P.

No. COA15-1199.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.