alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

2... See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32, 22.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2003). 

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-435-CR

RICHARD DEWAYNE BEASON APPELLANT

A/K/A RICHARD BEASON

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Richard Dewayne Beason appeals his sixty-year sentence for

aggravated assault of a family member with a weapon.2 We affirm.

Appellant pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated assault of a family

member with a weapon. After hearing evidence and argument on the issue of
3... TEX. R. APP. P. 21.6 (providing generally that defendant must present

motion for new trial to trial court within ten days of its filing); Thompson v.

State, 243 S.W.3d 774, 775–76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d)

(holding length-of-sentence claim not preserved for review); Crawford v. State,

No. 02-04-00299-CR, 2005 WL 1477958, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June

23, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (holding that

disproportionate sentence claim must be preserved for appellate review); see

Carranza v. State, 960 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that

appellant had burden not only to file motion for new trial, but also to “present”

it to the trial court).

4... Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79.

5... See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.6; Carranza, 960 S.W.2d at 79; Amaro v.

State, 970 S.W.2d 172, 174 n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). 

2

punishment, the jury assessed punishment at sixty years’ confinement. In his

sole point on appeal, appellant contends that his sentence was disproportionate

to the crime committed. 

Although appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, he has failed to

preserve his complaint because the record does not indicate that he presented

his motion for new trial to the trial court.

3

 The term “present” means the

record must show that the movant for a new trial sustained the burden of

actually delivering the motion for new trial to the attention or actual notice of

the trial court.

4

 Here, the record establishes that Appellant timely filed his

motion for new trial, but it does not show that he actually delivered it to the

trial court or otherwise brought it to the trial court’s attention.5 Accordingly,

because appellant did not preserve his claim regarding the alleged
3

disproportionate sentencing, we overrule his sole point. The trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

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

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

DELIVERED: August 29, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Thursday, September 15, 2005, which is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The meeting will focus on presentations regarding the effects of Hurricane Katrina on communications services in the Gulf Coast states. 

                    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Make your request as early as possible; please allow at least 5 days advance notice. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to:                     *fcc504@fcc.gov*                     or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).                 

                    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live over the Internet from the FCC's Audio/Video Events Web page at                     *http://www.fcc.gov/​realaudio*.                 

                    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services call (703) 993-3100 or go to                     *http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu*.                 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-18249 Filed 9-9-05; 1:22 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
**Exhibit 99.17**

**CONSENT OF DR. GUILLERMO PAREJA, P.GEO.**

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, Dr. Guillermo Pareja, P.Geo., consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical report dated31 December, 2015, entitled “Cerro Negro Operations, Santa Cruz Province, Argentina, NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Technical Report”), or portions thereof, that was prepared by me,that I supervised the preparation of 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 derived or 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 

 

**CONSENT OF DR. GUILLERMO PAREJA, P.GEO.**

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, Dr. Guillermo Pareja, P.Geo., consent to (i) the use of and reference to the technical report dated 31 December, 2015,entitled “Peñasquito Polymetallic Operation, Zacatecas State, Mexico, NI 43-101 Technical Report” (the “Technical Report”), or portions thereof, that was prepared by me, that Isupervised the preparation of 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) theinformation derived or 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 

 

/s/ Dr. Guillermo Pareja

Name:
 
Dr. Guillermo Pareja, P.Geo.
In the Matter of K.E.T.

No. COA15-430.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed and Remanded.
NUMBER 13-14-00076-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CHAMPION ENERGY 

SERVICES, LLC, APPELLANT,

v.

CITY OF WESLACO, APPELLEE.

On appeal from the 398th 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 the 
2

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 is GRANTED and this appeal is ordered 

ABATED 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 commence accordingly. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

12th day of March, 2014.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51183

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDDY ALONZO DIAZ-PEREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-777-ALL

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Freddy Alonzo Diaz-Perez (Diaz) appeals his sentence following his guilty

plea conviction for unlawfully reentering the United States following

deportation. Diaz argues for the first time on appeal that the district court

committed “significant procedural error” by failing to adequately explain the

sentence it chose. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (a district

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51183

2

court commits procedural error if fails to adequately explain its chosen

sentence). 

We review Diaz’s argument for plain error only. See United States v.

Garza-Lopez, 410F.3d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 2005). Diaz’s assertion that the district

court’s explanation of its sentence did not comport with Rita v. United States,

127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), is without merit. Accordingly, Diaz has shown no

procedural error, plain or otherwise, by the district court. 

Diaz also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the sentencing

range set forth under the Guidelines was greater than necessary to accomplish

the goals of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that although

his sentence was within the guidelines range, it should not be presumed

reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is flawed under Kimbrough v. United

States, 128 S. Ct. 558, 574 (2007). This argument also is reviewed for plain error

only. See Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d at 272.

Although Kimbrough made clear that a district court may, in certain cases,

conclude that the Guidelines fail properly to reflect § 3553(a)’s considerations

and may disagree with guidelines policy, it does not follow that a district court

abuses its discretion when it concludes, as the district court did here, that the

Guidelines are appropriate. Further, because the district court was free to vary

from the Guidelines if it disagreed with the application of § 2L1.2, no plain error

is shown. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.

2008). Diaz has failed to overcome the presumption of reasonableness that

should be afforded his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Alonzo,

435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). 

In assessing Diaz’s sentence, the district court concluded that Diaz’s prior

offense was, in fact, serious and that Diaz had options other than illegally

returning to the United States to avoid being kidnaped. The sentence was not

unreasonable. Id.

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136586 & (43) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

FRANK RICHARD JACOBSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136586 

 COA: 281587 

Washtenaw CC: 06-000289-CH 

NORFOLK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2008 order 

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

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for 

miscellaneous relief is DENIED. 

t0828 

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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136643 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136643 

 COA: 274771 

Livingston CC: 04-014540-FC

ANDREW TYRONE BELL,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions 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
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Aug. 27, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11172

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00953-CV-1-MEF

GREG DAVIS, as next friend and natural guardian of J.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

HOUSTON COUNTY, ALABAMA BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

_________________________

(August 27, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Greg Davis sued the Houston County, Alabama Board of Education, on

behalf of his son, Joshua Davis, who was expelled by it for having struck two of

his football coaches after he was removed from a football game. Davis claims that

the defendant is liable to his son under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his son’s

right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claims that the

defendant did not expel two similarly situated students and, therefore, violated his

son’s right under the equal protection clause to be free from intentional

discrimination at the hands of government officials. See Village of Willowbrook v.

Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam); Campbell v. Rainbow City, 434 F.3d

1306, 1313-14 (11 Cir. 2006). The district court granted summary judgment to th

the defendant board of education. We review this grant de novo. Arrington v.

Helms, 438 F.3d 1336, 1341 (11 Cir. 2006). th

In order for another student to be similarly situated to Joshua Davis, plaintiff

must show that the students are “prima facie identical in all relevant respects.” 

Campbell, 434 F.3d at 1314. Two individuals are “similarly situated” if the

quantity and quality of the comparator’s misconduct is “nearly identical” to the

individual raising the discrimination claim. Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364,

1368 (11 Cir. 1999). th

Plaintiff has offered two students whom he claims are similarly situated to
3

Joshua Davis, but who were not expelled. The first student, however, was

involved in “horseplay” by the sole victim’s own testimony, who urged that he be

“talked to” but not disciplined. The second proposed comparator was a sixth grade

student who did not strike anyone. We conclude that neither of these proposed

comparators is similarly situated to Joshua Davis under the law of this circuit. See

Maniccia, 171 F.3d at 1368 (comparators who did not do what the plaintiff did are

not similar); Hammock ex rel. Hammock v. Keys, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1232 (S.D.

Ala. 2000) (equal protection does not require that elementary and high school

students be treated identically in school discipline cases). Accordingly, plaintiff

has not established a prima facie case of intentional discrimination against his son

under the Fourteenth Amendment, and the judgment of the district court is due to

be

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009282EN.01003901.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/39

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-21/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Digital terrestrial television - Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Principles of sound administration and proportionality - Rights of the defence)

2009/C 282/72

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, of 8.4.2006.

1

---
Annabelle UMBERGER v. PIKE CORPORATION, J. Eric Pike, Charles E. Bayless, James R. Helvey III, Peter Pace, Daniel J. Sullivan, James L. Turner, Court Square Capital Partners, Pioneer Parent, Inc., and Pioneer Merger Sub, Inc.

No. 37PA16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 8, 2016.

Scott M. Tyler, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

Glenn E. Ketner, III, Charlotte, for Pike Corporation.

David G. Schiller, Raleigh, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

Paul R. Dickinson, Jr., Charlotte, for Lieberg, Collin.

Marc Ackerman, for Lieberg, Collin.

Richard A. Maniskas, for Lieberg, Collin.

Kurt F. Hausler, Charlotte, for Beickert, Edwin.

Brian D. Long, for Beickert, Edwin.

J. Daniel Albert, for Umberger, Annabelle, et al.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (Pike Corporation) on the 5th of February 2016 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of February 2016."
GOODWIN v. SMITH.

No. 398P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, for Smith, Norman B.

Wesley Goodwin, Greensboro, for Goodwin, Wesley Foust-Graham.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of September 2015 by Plaintiff for New Trial:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
STATE v. Melissa Amber DALTON.

No. 336PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 12, 2016.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Dalton, Melissa Amber.

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. Glover, Chapel Hill.

Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 12th of April 2016 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th of April 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 18th day of May 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit
32
 
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350,
 Chapter 63 of Title
18, of
 U.S.C. as adopted
pursuant to
 Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Amendment Number 1 of Form
10-Q/A,  of Titan Technologies, Inc.(the "Company") for the period
ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the
date  indicated  below,  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 my knowledge:
 
 a)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 b)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date: August
11, 2009
 
  /s/ Ronald L.
Wilder
 Ronald L.
Wilder
 President