alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.12

CONSENT OF ANDY FORTIN

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, 2012, 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/or documents:



|1. | The technical report that has an effective date of January 26, 2012, entitled Éléonore Gold Project Quebec, Canada NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Éléonore Report); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Éléonore Report and the Éléonore
Project, 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, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376 and 333-181116 on Form S-8 of the Company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 1, 2013 |  |                        
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Andy Fortin        
|                    |  | Name: Andy Fortin, Eng.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 25, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1417

Lower Tribunal No. F99-35158C

________________

Billy Cotton,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.

Billy Cotton, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MILTON C. INCIARTE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-89-156-A, CA-97-246-AM) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton C. Inciarte, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles Erickson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Milton Inciarte seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Inciarte , Nos. CR-89- 156-A; CA-97-246-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1998). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2008171EN.01003301.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 May 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E)

(Case T-329/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark E - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 171/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented initially by R. Böhm, and subsequently by R. Böhm and U. Sander, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2006 (Case R 394/2006-1) concerning the registration of the word mark E as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326 of 30.12.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                           Province Healthcare Company
                                  Subsidiaries


Brim Healthcare, Inc.
Brim Hospitals, Inc.
Care Health Company, Inc.
Havasu Regional Medical Center, LLC
Mexia Principal Healthcare Limited Partnership
Mexia-Principal, Inc.
Outpatient Services, Inc.
Palestine-Principal G.P., Inc.
Palestine Principal Healthcare Limited Partnership
PHC-Ashland, L.P.
PHC-Aviation, Inc.
PHC-Belle Glade, Inc.
PHC-Charlestown, L.P.
PHC-Cleveland, Inc.
PHC-Doctors' Hospital, Inc.
PHC-Elko, Inc.
PHC-Eunice, Inc.
PHC-Fort Mohave, Inc.
PHC Hospitals, LLC
PHC-Indiana, Inc.
PHC-Jasper, Inc.
PHC-Knox, Inc.
PHC-Lake Havasu, Inc.
PHC-Lakewood, Inc.
PHC-Los Alamos, Inc.
PHC-Louisiana, Inc.
PHC-Martinsville, Inc.
PHC-Minden G.P., Inc
PHC-Minden, L.P.
PHC-Morgan City, L.P.
PHC-Morgan Lake, Inc.
PHC-Opelousas, L.P.
PHC-Palestine, Inc.
PHC-Paris, G.P., Inc.
PHC-Paris Healthcare, L.P.
PHC-Tennessee, Inc.
PRHC-Alabama, LLC
PRHC-Ennis G.P., Inc.
PRHC-Ennis, L.P.
Principal Hospital Company of Nevada, Inc.
Principal Knox, L.L.C.
Principal Knox, L.P.
Principal-Needles, Inc.
Vaughan Regional Medical Center, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         683,000               2,251,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,589,000              10,802,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,291,000               9,716,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,353,000               7,144,000
<PP&E>                                       5,989,000               6,733,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                 457,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,814,000              53,746,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,226,000              17,652,000
<BONDS>                                     11,139,000              10,681,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    27,357,000              19,489,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,814,000              53,746,000
<SALES>                                     11,482,000              13,441,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,482,000              13,441,000
<CGS>                                        4,856,000               6,644,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,626,000               6,269,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               553,000               1,577,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             581,000               3,093,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (138,000)             (4,560,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,000               (603,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   239,000             (3,839,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                   (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                   (.23)
        

</TABLE>
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, ex rel the STATE of Washington, OBO Sherrell L. Clark, Plaintiffs v. Jason M. CHEEKS, Defendant.

No. COA15-1127.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed and Remanded.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00454-CR

Ernesto Amador Sanchez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04-771-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of

aggravated sexual assault. According to the trial court’s judgment, appellant pled guilty to the

charge in exchange for a twenty-five year sentence and the waiver of two other charges. On

March 22, 2005, the trial court entered a judgment in accordance with that agreement. Appellant

filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 2008. The trial court has certified that the cause was a plea

bargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d);see also Tex. R.

App. P. 26.2 (notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of date sentence is imposed). Thus,

the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
2

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 29, 2008

Do Not Publish
Rodney Hall, Dante Branham, Ehramis Chism, Tyriuq Gordon, M.M.(minor) by his Guardian Ad Litem, Benika Rayford, Benika Rayford, Individually, and Erik Staley v. Michael L. Greene and Mount Zion Christian Academy

No. 96P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Christopher Walker, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Hall, Rodney, et al.

Pamela S. Duffy, Attorney at Law, Burlington, for Greene, Michael L.

Brenda S. McClearn, Attorney at Law, Peter F. O'Connell, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Mount Zion Christian Academy

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th of March 2016 by Plaintiffs 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 9th of June 2016."
# CE2004078EN.01005801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/58

---

(2004/C 78 E/0057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1946/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject:   Investigations into subsidies paid by Spain to the Izar company and resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene shipyards in Galicia

Subject:

To what extent can the investigations undertaken by the Commission into alleged payments of subsidies by the Spanish Government to the Izar group affect the legitimate complaints relating to resumption of construction work on merchant vessels at the Izar-Fene — formerly Astano — shipyards in Galicia?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

(14 August 2003)

The Commission does not see any direct link between the investigation of possible subsidies paid by the Spanish Government to the IZAR group and the prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships.

The investigation of possible subsidies to IZAR is part of a state aid investigation covering the years after 2000. The prohibition of Fene shipyard to construct merchant ships was decided by the Commission (1) in 1997 as a condition for state aid supporting a major restructuring of the public Spanish shipyards. Therefore, even though Fene shipyard is part of the group of public Spanish shipyards, the two issues are not directly linked.

1

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3731 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3731

  To require an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and 
  Affordable Care Act to notify individuals in the case that personal 
   information of such individuals is known to have been acquired or 
    accessed as a result of a breach of the security of any system 
                      maintained by the Exchange.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

Mrs. Black (for herself and Mr. Meehan) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require an Exchange established under the Patient Protection and 
  Affordable Care Act to notify individuals in the case that personal 
   information of such individuals is known to have been acquired or 
    accessed as a result of a breach of the security of any system 
                      maintained by the Exchange.

    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 ``Federal Exchange Data Breach 
Notification Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION TO INDIVIDUALS OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BEING 
              ACQUIRED OR ACCESSED AS A RESULT OF A BREACH OF SYSTEM 
              SECURITY.

    After the discovery of a breach of security of any system 
maintained by an Exchange established pursuant to section 1321(c) of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), 
the Exchange shall, in accordance with the requirements of the Health 
Breach Notification Rule issued by the Federal Trade Commission (16 
C.F.R. 318), provide notice of such breach to each individual whose 
personal information (including any non health-related personal 
information) is known to have been acquired or accessed as a result of 
such breach of security. A violation of this section shall be treated 
as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice prescribed under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission 
Act (15 U.S.C. 57a).
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004078EN.01048401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/484 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/484

---

(2004/C 78 E/0506)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3189/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Explosion of Nokia mobile phone batteries

Subject:

In an article which appeared on 16 October 2003, the Brussels daily newspaper ‘La Libre Belgique’ published the results of a survey conducted by the Belgian consumer organisation ‘Test-Achats’ into various incidents in recent months in which the rechargeable batteries of Nokia mobile phones exploded.

These cases occurred mainly in Belgium and the Netherlands and other cases have been reported in Switzerland, Norway and Vietnam. According to the newspaper report a mobile phone exploded in its owner's pocket very recently in the Netherlands.

Is the Commission aware of this problem? What measures does it intend to take to protect European consumers?

Does it not consider it necessary to take precautionary action by suspending sales of these portable phones in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

(20 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's answers to Written Questions P-3145/03 from Mr van Velzen (1) and P-3152/03 from Mrs Plooij-Van Gorsel (2).

1

2

---

(1)  See page 474.

1

(2)  See page 476.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


Each of the  undersigned  hereby  certifies that this  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the information  contained in
such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


August 14, 2007                                 August 14, 2007


/s/ Jeffrey L. Minch                            /s/ Richard S. Chilinski
Jeffrey L. Minch,                               Richard S. Chilinski,
President and Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer













                                       22
Shaka Greene v. Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC and US Bank, N.A.

In the Matter of the foreclosure of real property under deed of trust from Jeffrey S. Kenley and Laura L. Kenley, in the original amount of $296,700.00, and dated September 29, 2005 and recorded on September 30, 2005, in book 3935 at page 425, Union County Registry

No. 26P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Erin Rozzelle, Attorney at Law, For Greene, Shaka.

D. Anderson Carmen, Attorney at Law, For U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.

Adam T. Duke, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

Gregory D. Spink, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC.

Bradley Craig Friesen, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

Jolee M. Wortham, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, For Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC.

**ORDER**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of January 2016 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 21st of January 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 9th of June 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of February 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000

<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                              139313
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1084789
<ALLOWANCES>                                         79791
<INVENTORY>                                         537799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1786154
<PP&E>                                             3408972
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2231322
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3704924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1652774
<BONDS>                                            1073887
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             19023
<OTHER-SE>                                          489230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3704924
<SALES>                                            4557662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   4557662
<CGS>                                              2640504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2640504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1359436
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      9088
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  173254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     409767
<INCOME-TAX>                                        154700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 255067
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        255067
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.04



</TABLE>
DRURY v. The SECURITY STATE BANK.

No. S16A0518.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 9, 2016.

Mark M.J. Webb, Brinson Askew Berry Seigler Richardson, Rome, for appellant.

Carol V. Clark, Elizabeth W. Boswell, Carol Clark Law, Atlanta, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

1. The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

2. Appellee bank's request for sanctions pursuant to this Court's Rule 6, for filing a frivolous appeal, is hereby granted in the amount of $2,500. The sanction constitutes a joint and several money judgment in favor of appellee against appellant and/or appellant's counsel.

*Affirmed without opinion and penalty imposed.*

All the Justices concur, except BENHAM, J., who dissents as to Division 2.
NO. 07-04-0026-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D MARCH 4, 2 004

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST O F S.M.L.D., A CHILD

_________________________________ FROM THE 3 20TH DI STRICT COURT OF PO TTER CO UNTY; NO. 66,038-D; HONORABLE D ON EMERSON , JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Appellant Dw

ayne Lynn Dale filed a M otion to Dis miss on Februar y 26, 2004. No deci sio n of th is Court hav ing been deli vered to date , we gr ant the motion. Acco rdin gly, the appeal is d ismissed. N o motion for rehearingwill be entertained and ou r mandate will issue forthw ith. Tex. R . App. P. 42.1. All costs a re assessed to appellant.
James T. Campbell Justice