alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2009 – Italy v Commission**

**(Case T-424/05)**

State aid – Aid scheme established by the Italian authorities for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities
specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market – Obligation to state reasons – Selective nature of the measure – Effect on trade between the Member States and distortion of competition – Article 87(3)(c) EC

1.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Contradiction – Effects (Art. 253 EC) (see para 67)*

2.                     *State aid – Examination by the Commission – Decision to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC (Art.
88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6(1) and (7)) (see paras 69-70)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and
253 EC) (see paras 78, 85)*

4.                     *State aid – Effect on trade between Member States – Adverse effect on competition – Aid of little importance in a sector with
lively competition (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 153-156)*

5.                     *Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Pleas that may be raised against a Commission decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC
and 230 EC) (see paras 169-171)*

6.                     *State aid – Prohibition – Exceptions (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 174-175, 179)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/638/EC of 6 September 2005 on the aid scheme implemented by Italy for certain undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities specialised in shares of small- and medium-capitalisation companies listed on regulated markets (OJ 2006 L 268, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
STATE v. MILES.

No. COA07-1444.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CRS59198).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004070EN.01020201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/202

---

(2004/C 70 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3035/03

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Traceability requirement under Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) 178/2002

Subject:

Article 18(2) of the EU's Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (1) laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (the General Food Regulation) states that food and feed business operators shall be able to identify ‘any person’ [in the Swedish text ‘alla personer’, literally ‘all persons’] from whom they have been supplied with a food, a feed, a food-producing animal, or any substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed.

1

However, the English phrase ‘any person’ used here would most closely be translated in Swedish with ‘varje person’ (‘each person’).

With every respect for the translation preferences of the EC Court of Justice, how, in the Commission's view, should this point be interpreted? Is any distinction intended, or is this merely a linguistic discrepancy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

(2 December 2003)

The traceability requirement as set up by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (the General Food Law Regulation) is limited to the identification of the immediate supplier of a particular product and its immediate subsequent recipient.

The said provision does not require food and feed business operators to be able to follow the path of a particular product or ingredient through identification of all preceding suppliers and all succeeding customers throughout the whole supply chain.

The legislation relies on a one up, one down approach between businesses to ensure full chain traceability.

Any linguistic version, which would risk altering the meaning and scope of the general traceability requirement as outlined above, should be considered as a purely linguistic discrepancy and not as an intended distinction in terms of substance.

However, in the case of the Swedish text, ‘alla personer’ or ‘varje person’ are two equivalent expressions that both conform to the ‘one up, one down’ approach. The use of either of them does not alter the meaning of the phrase. Similar stylistic differences exist in the Danish and Dutch versions.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2008 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission**

**(Case T-59/05)**

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of development, maintenance and support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General
for Agriculture – Selection and award criteria – Rejection of a submitted tender – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – No manifest error of assessment – Principles of diligence and sound administration

1.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Tender procedure – Selection and award criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002,
Arts 89 and 97(1); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 135 to 138) (see paras 48-51)*

2.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts – Award
criteria (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 97(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 138) (see paras 56-59)*

3.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions
– Judicial review – Limits (see paras 70-71, 82)*

4.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Award of contracts (see
paras 101, 104-105)*

5.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope (Art. 253 EC) (see paras 120-122)*

6.                     *Community law – Principles – Principle of sound administration – Duty of diligence (see paras 152-153)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2004 rejecting the bid filed by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision of the Commission to award the contract to another bidder. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki – Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki to bear four fifths of its costs. |
**Exhibit 99.10**

**CONSENT OF NURI HMIDI, P.ENG.**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F, and any amendments and exhibits thereto, ofGoldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (collectively, the “Annual Report”), I, Nuri Hmidi, P.Eng., consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical report dated 31 December,2015, entitled “Red Lake Operations, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Technical Report”), or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that I supervised the preparationof and/or was reviewed and approved by me, (ii) the use of and references to my name, including as an expert or “qualified person”, in connection with the Annual Report and the Technical Report, and (iii) the information derivedor summarized from the Technical Report that is included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report and any of the exhibits thereto. 

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the Annual Report and exhibits thereto intoRegistration Statement Nos. 333-126039,333-126040,333-151243,333-151251,333-174376,333-181116,333-188805,333-195816 and333-213153 on Form S-8,No. 333-207371 on Form F-3 and No. 333-211892 on Form F-10 of the Company. 

Date: March16, 2017
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136724 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: 136724 

 COA: 276152 

Macomb CC: 2006-000383-FC 

DARYL L. WALDON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 1, 2008 

judgment 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
Gregory Allen TAYLOR v. HARNETT COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, Jacqualyn L. Lee.

No. 412P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Gregory Allen Taylor, for Taylor, Gregory Allen.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Harnett County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                           36,086
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    24,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 48,788
<PP&E>                                                        1,691,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   97,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                1,779,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            41,764
<BONDS>                                                         605,212
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                            481
<OTHER-SE>                                                      998,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  1,779,412
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                188,780
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   109,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  5,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               30,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  48,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              48,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   (2,858)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  (3,368)
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     36,332
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      1.21
        

</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00357

- CV

G RIFFIN P ARC R ESIDENTIAL A SSOCIATION
, I NC ., Appellant

V

.

J OHN C. K ING , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 158th District Court

of Denton County (17

- 3380

- 158)

April 25, 201 9

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

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

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed . W e render judgment t hat Gri ffin Parc Residential Association,

Inc. ’s sending of the notice of the 2016 annual maintenance assessment did not

violate the provisions of Section 362(a)(4) of the United States Bankruptcy Code

.

It is further ordered that A ppellee John C. King shall pay a ll of the costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel Justice Dabney Bassel
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Dorsey NEEDHAM.

No. COA15-702.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. CHRISTOPHER RAY LUCKADOO.

No. COA15-775.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part; Remanded for New Sentencing Hearing.
# CE2004078EN.01080601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/806 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/806

---

(2004/C 78 E/0855)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3365/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Regeneration of the Psyrri district

Subject:

One of the projects being undertaken in Athens with some Community funding with a view to unifying the archaeological sites is the so-called regeneration of the Psyrri district; it forms part of the old city and had low buildings, narrow streets and a working-class population pursuing traditional economic activities. Unfortunately, this regeneration is increasingly displacing the original inhabitants and traditional craftsmen and leading to the completely uncontrolled development of nightclubs which are a source of great inconvenience and pollution. Those directly affected have increasingly complained and made representations to the authorities, but without any result so far, despite the fact that it is generally recognised that infringements and illegal activities have taken place in the Psyrri district.

Will the Commission say whether it was aware of any planning objectives of this regeneration before financing the projects, whether it had given its approval and whether it has monitored their ‘implementation’? How is it possible for Community funds to be used to carry out projects which are destroying the urban and economic fabric at the very centre of the Greek capital?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

(12 January 2004)

The integration of the Athens archaeological sites is one of the priorities included in the third Community Support Framework for Greece and is implemented by way of a series of projects. These projects concern the renovation of the sites and related cultural activities. As it does not concern projects in the sense of chapter V (‘major projects’) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), the national authorities are responsible for the selection of individual projects. The detailed planning and implementation is a matter for the designated managing authorities of the relevant programmes, in particular the operational programme ‘Culture’ and the regional operational programme ‘Attica’.

1

According to the information currently available to the Commission, no commercial activities of the kind described in the question of the Honourable Member have been supported under the programmes concerned.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Henry Atkins JENNINGS.

No. 563P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Henry A. Jennings, Pro Se.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of December 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00146-CR

Carla Deann Rolla, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-02-052, HONORABLE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The reporter’s record has not been filed and is overdue. The court reporter has

advised the Court that no request or payment for the record has been made. See Tex. R. App. P.

35.3(b). Appellant’s counsel, Donna Hall Keith, who our records reflect is retained, did not respond

to the clerk’s overdue notice.

This is an appeal from an order revoking community supervision. The clerk’s

record reflects that appellant was represented at the February 7, 2008, revocation hearing by

William D. Old, III, who was appointed on December 27, 2007. After the trial court revoked

supervision and imposed sentence, Old timely filed a motion to withdraw (which included a request

that substitute counsel be appointed), a notice of appeal, a request for preparation of the reporter’s

record, an affidavit of indigence signed by appellant, and a motion for a free reporter’s record on
2

appeal. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw and substituted Keith as counsel on appeal.

No action appears to have been taken on the request for a free record.

The appeal is abated and the trial court is instructed to determine, following a hearing

if necessary, whether appellant is presently indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. If the court finds that

appellant is indigent, it shall order the preparation of the reporter’s record at no cost to appellant.

If necessary, the court shall also appoint counsel to effectively represent appellant in this appeal.

Copies of all findings, conclusions, orders, and a transcription of the reporter’s notes if a hearing is

held, shall be tendered for filing in this Court no later than October 3, 2008.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson;

Abated

Filed: September 5, 2008

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Consent of BDO Seidman, LLP

                 Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Celeritek, Inc.
Santa Clara, California

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 No. 333-2886 pertaining to the 1985 Stock Incentive
Program, the Outside Directors' Stock Option Plan, the Employee Qualified Stock
Purchase Plan and the 1994 Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 No. 333-52037,
No. 333-89275 and No. 333-100784 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan;
Form S-8 No. 333-68249 pertaining to the Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan;
Form S-8 No. 333-49906 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and the
2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan; Form S-8 No. 333-67624 pertaining to the
1994 Stock Option Plan and the Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan; Form S-8
No. 333-102538 pertaining to the Tavanza, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan; and
Form S-8 No. 333-110164 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and the Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan of Celeritek, Inc. of our report dated
April 30, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

San Jose, California
June 24, 2004
<PAGE>   1
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Tekgraf, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-32578) of our report dated March 3,
2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Tekgraf, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999 and 1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1999, which report is included in this Form 10-K.

                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 2000
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-335-CV

IN RE JOHN WAYNE MASSINGALE	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 28, 2008
CATAWBA CNTY. v. LOGGINS.

No. 152P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 25, 2016.

J. David Abernethy, Attorney at Law, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency), et al.

Blair E. Cody, III, Hickory, for Loggins, Jason.

David W. Hood, Hickory, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of April 2016 by Plaintiff (Catawba County) for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of April 2016."
Exhibit 10(a)
  




CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 



We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 37 to Registration Statement No.
333-142592 on Form N-1A of our report dated September 27, 2010, relating to the financial
statements and financials highlights of BlackRock Funds II, including BlackRock Income
Portfolio and BlackRock Income Builder Portfolio, appearing in the Annual Report on Form
N-CSR of BlackRock Funds II, for the year ended July 31, 2010, and to the references to
us under the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectuses of BlackRock Income
Portfolio and BlackRock Global Dividend Income Portfolio (formerly BlackRock Income
Builder Portfolio), and to the references to us under the headings “Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm” and “Financial Statements” in the Statement of
Additional Information, all of which are part of such Registration Statement. 




/s/ Deloitte & Touche
  LLP 

  Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 

  November 24, 2010
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Lee McGRAW.

No. COA15-6.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.