alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2


CERTIFICATION


         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of Radica
Games Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



Dated:  March 25, 2004
                                       /S/ David C.W. Howell
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Name: David C.W. Howell
                                       Title: President Asia Operations and
                                              Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51023 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMIRO ROBLES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-76-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramiro RoblesChavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18697]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Network Reliability and Interoperability Council Meeting 
Postponed

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of postponement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App. 2, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises 
interested persons that the meeting of the Network Reliability and 
Interoperability Council scheduled for September 21, 2005 has been 
cancelled and will be rescheduled for a date to be subsequently 
announced.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffery Goldthorp at (202) 418-1096, 
TTY (202) 418-2989, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d892bdbebebdaaa1f59fb7b4bcacb0b7aaa898bebbbbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d69cb3b0b0b3a4affb91b9bab2a2beb9a4a696b0b5b5f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18697 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 26**CONSENT OF D. WELLS**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated January 2003, entitled “Technical Report on Miningand Processing Assets of Peak Gold Mines, in New South Wales, Australia and MineraAlumbera Ltd. in Argentina” (the “Peak Gold Report”);  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Peak Gold Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ D. Wells
Exhibit 99.7

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251,
333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8, and to the use of our reports dated February 12, 2014 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Goldcorp Inc. and the effectiveness of Goldcorp Inc.s internal control over financial
reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2013.



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte LLP                                               
|                                                               
|Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Vancouver, Canada
|                                                               
|March 31, 2014
State v. David Michael Wilson

164P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

David Michael Wilson, for Wilson, David Michael.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review of Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
# C_2008092EN.01004603.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/46

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — Otsuka Chemical v EFSA

(Case T-313/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 92/92)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136147 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136147 

 COA: 283166 

Isabella CC: 06-001391-FH 

VINCENTE LAMAR LIPSEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Isabella County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the application for leave to appeal within 28 days after 

the date of this order. The prosecutor should address the parties’ agreement, as part of 

the plea bargain, that the defendant’s sentence in this case would be imposed 

concurrently to the defendant’s paroled sentence(s). In particular, the prosecutor should 

address: (1) what the parties understood “concurrent” sentences to mean under these 

circumstances; (2) whether the 168 days’ jail credit toward the maximum sentence(s) for 

the defendant’s paroled sentence(s), as described by the Michigan Department of 

Corrections Record Specialist who testified on October 12, 2007, rendered the 2007 

sentence “concurrent” to the paroled sentence(s) within the meaning of the parties’ plea 

agreement; (3) whether the defendant received any jail credit, as a result of the plea 

agreement, that would not normally be afforded to a parolee who is returned to prison 

after being convicted of a new offense while on parole; and (4) in light of the answers to 

these questions, whether the term of the plea agreement requiring concurrent sentences 

was honored. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

d0916 

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 19, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Denver Aaron CONLEY.

No. COA15-798.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed in part; remanded for resentencing.
STATE v. Bernard George LAMP, Jr.

No. 222A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 10, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

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

Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*556The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of December 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of December 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 21st day of December 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
State of North Carolina, v. Keenan Denzel McGuire, Defendant.

No. COA16-198

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

SMC CORPORATION  EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Three Months          Six Months
                                                                               Ended                Ended
                                                                           June 30, 2000        June 30, 2000
                                                                           -------------        -------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                  <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share:

Weighted average number of shares                                            5,780,599            5,780,599
                                                                           =============        =============
Diluted Earnings Per Share:
  Weighted average number of shares                                          5,780,599            5,780,599

  Stock option plan shares to be issued at prices                                    -                    -
  ranging from $3.813 to $9.00 per share

     Total Diluted Shares                                                    5,780,599            5,780,599
                                                                           =============        =============

</TABLE>

Due to the Company's average stock price through June 30, 2000, stock options
accounted for using the treasury stock method would be antidilutive.


                                      18
STATE of North Carolina, v. Daquain Rashad RICHARDSON, Defendant.

No. COA15-215.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
NUMBER 13

- 1 4

- 00 076

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

CHAMPION ENERGY

SERVICES, LLC

, APPELLANT,

v.

CITY OF WESLACO

, APPELLEE.

On a ppeal from the 398 th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on an agreed motion to abate the appeal to allow

the parties the opportunity to engage in mediation scheduled for April 2014 as ordered by

the trial court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the2

agreed motion to abate, is of the opinion that the motion to abate the appeal should be

granted. The agreed motion to abate the appeal i s GRANTED and this appeal is ordered

ABAT ED until May 19, 2014

.

The Court directs appellant to file, on or before May 19, 2014

, either (1) a motion

to reinstate the appeal, or (2) a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to settlement . If

the case is reinstated, the briefing schedule will comme nce accordingly.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

12th day of March , 201 4

.
# C_2023164EN.01004801.xml

| 8.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/48

---

Action brought on 14 March 2023 — Merlin and Others v Commission

(Case T-141/23)

(2023/C 164/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Laurent Merlin (Equihen-Plage, France) and the 27 other applicants (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote and F. de Bure, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | find, under Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission’s failure to decide on the alleged existence of State aid on the basis of the information provided by the applicants constitutes a failure to act; |
| --- | --- |

—

find, under Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission’s failure to decide on the alleged existence of State aid on the basis of the information provided by the applicants constitutes a failure to act;

| — | order the Commission to take a decision within two months on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take a decision within two months on the basis of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law. They submit that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in so far as it did not adopt the decision provided for under Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589 following the preliminary examination of the information provided in the context of the complaints addressed to it by the applicants as regards allegedly unlawful State aid granted by the Netherlands authorities in favour of owners of sea fishing vessels.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6800

NORMAN A. BRYSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MARTHA A. WANNAMAKER, Warden; CHARLES M.

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-00-2831-2-19)

Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman A. Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Alan Jacobs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Norman A. Bryson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001) and denying his motion to alter or amend. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. This was Bryson’s second § 2254 petition, and he did not

obtain permission from this Court to file the petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). Further, the record

belies Bryson’s claim that his first petition was not decided on

the merits. Finally, Bryson cannot now challenge the decision in

the prior § 2254 petition. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LUIS MANUEL TEJADA a/k/a LUIS TEJADA and NOBELLA JOSEFINA 

OLLER TEJADA a/k/a NOBELLA J. TEJADA, his wife,

Appellants,

v.

HELM BANK USA, a Florida corporation f/k/a HELM BANK,

a Florida corporation,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1069

[March 15, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-17309 

CACE 11.

Kenneth Eric Trent, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Juan Ramirez, Jr. of ADR Miami, LLC, Coral Gables, and Manuel A. 

Ramirez of Castro & Ramirez, Coral Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In the Matter of: A.L.H. and E.C.H.

No. COA16-124

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
**Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 – Commission v Greece**

**(Case C‐264/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2000/60/EC – Protection and management of water – Failure to undertake the analyses required – Failure to submit the summary reports required

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 10)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Breach of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) – Failure to submit summary reports of the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts – Failure to undertake the analyses and reviews required by Article 5(1) of the directive. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to ensure that, for each river basin district falling within its territory, an analysis of its characteristics, a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and an economic analysis of water use, are undertaken in accordance with the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of the directive and, by failing to submit summary reports of the analyses required by that provision, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2) of the directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
# CE2004070EN.01019403.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/194 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/194

---

(2004/C 70 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject:   Info-Points and Carrefours

Subject:

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?

---
BOGER v. SOLOMON, et al.

No. 158P06-6.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Derrick D. Boger, Polkton, for Boger, Derrick D.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of February 2016 by Defendant for Mandamus:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 472 

To authorize a major medical facility project for the Department of Veterans 

Affairs at Denver, Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2007 

Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize a major medical facility project for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs at Denver, Colorado. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY 

4 PROJECT, DENVER, COLORADO. 

5 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out a 

6 major medical facility project for a replacement facility for 

7 the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Den8 ver, Colorado, in an amount not to exceed $523,000,000. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 472 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR USE OF EXISTING FUNDS. 

2 The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may obligate and 

3 expend any unobligated amount in the ‘‘Construction, 

4 Major Projects’’ account of the Department of Veterans 

5 Affairs to purchase a site for, and for the construction 

6 of, the Department of Veterans Affairs replacement facil7 ity authorized in section 1. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
In the Matter of M.B.

No. COA15-990.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.
Steven T. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. Sherill A. YOUNG, Defendant.

No. COA15-1121.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.