alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March20, 2013

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

Referenceis made to the Annual Information Form to be included in the Annual Report onForm 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. to be filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

Ihereby consent to (i) the references to my name in the 40-F as an author of thereport entitled “Nevsun Resources Limited, Bisha Polymetallic OperationEritrea, Africa, NI 43-101 Technical Report”, dated January 1, 2011, and as anauthor of the report entitled “Bisha Polymetallic Operation, Eritrea, Africa,NI 43-101 Technical Report” dated August 31, 2012, and (ii) to the use of thereports in the 40-F.

***/s/ David Thomas***_________________________David Thomas, P.Geo. AMEC Americas  Ltd.

----
State of North Carolina v. Jonathan Odell Teeter a/k/a Jonathan Udell Teeter

No. 108P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Lora C. Cubbage, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Jonathan Udell Teeter, Pro Per.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of March 2016 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 9th of June 2016."
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|/s/    DAVID P. ANASTASI                               
|                                                       
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief Executive Officer



March 12, 2004
# C_2009180EN.01000802.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-542/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Refusal to register - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(3) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Use after the date on which the application for registration was filed)

2009/C 180/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Imagination Technologies Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, instructed by P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2007 in Case T-461/04 Imagination Technologies v OHIM (Pure Digital), by which the Court dismissed an action for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 September 2004 in Case R 108/2004-2 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘PURE DIGITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38

Imagination Technologies

OHIM (Pure Digital)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Imagination Technologies Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Imagination Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136513 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: 136513 

 COA: 281022 

Oakland CC: 2006-008564-AR 

48th Dist Ct: 06-20693-SD 

JOHN RONALD JEDLICKI,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0828 

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

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

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
* 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. 07-11204

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHERI ELIZABETH BELL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-13-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sheri Elizabeth Bell pleaded guilty pursuantto an agreementto one count

of health care fraud and was sentenced to serve 51 months in prison. Bell

appeals her sentence. She argues that the district court’s loss calculation is

incorrect and that both the loss amount and her base offense level should be

reduced.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11204

2

Under the discretionary sentencing system established by United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), district courts retain the duty to properly

calculate and consider the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing

Guidelines, along with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

when fashioning a sentence. United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19 (5th

Cir. 2005). When reviewing a sentence, we consider whether the district court

committed significant procedural error and whether the sentence imposed is

substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594, 597

(2007). The district court’s sentencing decision is ultimately reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Id.; see also United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554,

564 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (July 2, 2008) (No. 08-5226).

Bell has shown no significant procedural error in connection with her

sentence. See Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. The district court’s findings concerning

the amount of loss are plausible when considered in view ofthe record as a whole

and thus are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Jones, 475 F.3d 701,

705 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Bell. See GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d at 564. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
# C_2012355EN.01001403.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Belgium v Commission

(Case T-347/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value - Equal treatment)

2012/C 355/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Nynäs Petroleum AB (Stockholm, Sweden) and Nynas Belgium AB (Stockholm) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, M. Dean and D. McGowan, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, and by L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nynäs Petroleum AB and Nynas Belgium AB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nynäs Petroleum AB and Nynas Belgium AB to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21-1

CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Set forth below is a list of the Registrant's subsidiaries as of January 31,
2005:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         CONTROL BY
                                          JURISDICTION OF      ------------------------------
       NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                 ORGANIZATION          REGISTRANT         SUBSIDIARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                       <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc.            California              100%
Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.               North Carolina          100%
Flagstar Enterprises, Inc.                Alabama                                     100%
Spardee's Realty, Inc.                    Alabama                                     100%
HED, Inc.                                 North Carolina                              100%
Burger Chef Systems, Inc.                 North Carolina                              100%
Hardee's LTD, Fribourg                    Switzerland                                  98%
Hardee's REIT I, Inc.                     Delaware                                    100%
Hardee's REIT II, Inc.                    Delaware                                    100%
CKE REIT I, Inc                           Delaware                100%
CKE REIT II, Inc.                         Delaware                100%
Carl's Jr. Region VIII, Inc.              Delaware                                    100%
Aeroway, LLC                              California              100%
Santa Barbara Restaurant Group, Inc.      Delaware                100%
La Salsa, Inc.                            Delaware                                    100%
GB Franchise Corporation                  California                                  100%
La Salsa of Nevada, Inc.                  Nevada                                      100%
La Salsa Franchise, Inc.                  California                                  100%
Channel Islands Roasting Company          California              100%
</TABLE>
# CE2004070EN.01024102.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/241 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/241

---

(2004/C 70 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3233/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Standardisation of European Union studies in education systems

Subject:

Europe has taken yet one more step towards full convergence, and this time university education has taken centre stage. Thirty-three countries are seeking to create a European area of higher education in which qualifications, studies and the quality of university education will be of equal value, regardless of the university from which the qualification has been obtained or the country in which it is to be put to use.

In view of this it is perhaps time that a standardised approach was taken to European Union studies for university students, so as to enable each and every student in Europe to gain a similar insight into the political entity that is the united Europe, the home they share with their fellow European citizens.

Does the Commission believe that the time has now come to formulate a standardised university syllabus for European Union studies, so that young people entering university in any EU Member State gain a similar understanding of the European Union?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

(1 December 2003)

The Commission would refer first of all to Article 149 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the content of teaching is the responsibility of the Member States.

Moreover, it would be difficult to reconcile the principles of academic freedom and university independence, key principles of higher education, with the standardisation of the syllabus in various areas of teaching or research.

However, the Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member of its keen interest in the teaching of European integration at university. Thus, one of its ongoing projects in the field of education is the ‘Jean Monnet’ project, which aims to promote, using start-up grants, the development of specific courses in Community law, European economic integration, European political science and the history of European integration, all disciplines in which developments in European integration constitute an ever greater proportion of the syllabus.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7692** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. KEVIN LAMONT WALKER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 4:05

- cr - 00005

- RBS

- JEB

- 1 )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affi rmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Lamont Walker appeals the district court ’ s order s denying his various motions seeking reconsideration of the court’s previous denial of Walker’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion, to correct a clerical error, for appointment of counsel, for civi l contempt, and based on a miscarriage of justice . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and deny Walker’s motion for a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Walker , No. 4:05

- cr - 00005

- RBS

- J EB

- 1 (July 23 & Nov. 10 , 2010). 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.
AFFIRMED
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00078-CV

______________________________

DESHARN WHITE, MICKEY GERALD, JR., 

AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TRUSTEE FOR THE HOLDERS OF 

 MASRT ADJUSTABLE MORTGAGES TRUST 

2007-HF2 IN A SECURITIZATION, Appellees

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

 Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-08-4295-L

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
This appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court's docket 1

equalization program.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Desharn White, Mickey Gerald, Jr., and all other occupants of 1443 Driftwood Land, Cedar

Hill, Texas, appellants, filed their notice of appeal June 12, 2008.1

Appellants have not filed a docketing statement with this Court, nor have they paid a filing

fee or made any claim of indigency. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32. There is nothing in the record to

indicate appellants have made any effort to have either the clerk's record or reporter's record filed

with this Court, and they have not filed a brief. On August 25, 2008, we contacted appellants by

letter, giving them an opportunity to cure the various defects, and warning them that, if we did not

receive an adequate response within ten days, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

The letter addressed to appellant Mickey Gerald, Jr., came back as undeliverable, and we

have received no communication from the other appellants. Pursuant to Rule 42.3(b) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b).

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 18, 2008

Date Decided: September 19, 2008
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                             /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: November 14, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136221 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PHILLIP E. JONES, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136221 

 COA: 279712 
 Wayne CC: 06-634117-AH

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

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
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED, et al. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE.

No. 315PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James E. Scarbrough, James R. Demay, Concor, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage.

Jennifer Welch, Raleigh, Attorney at Law.

James M. Carpenter, General Counsel, for N.C. Home Builders Association, Inc.

John T. Benjamin, Jr., William E. Hubbard, Raleigh, for Leading Builders of America.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 30th of September 2015 by Leading Builders of America for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
STATE v. Andrew Darrin RAMSEUR

388A10-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 29, 2016

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Ramseur, Andrew Darrin.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, Christopher A. Brook, Legal Director, Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, James Coleman, Attorney at Law, Irving Joyner, Attorney at Law, Durham, for ACLU Capital Punishment Project, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of August 2016 by ACLU Capital Punishment Project, ACLU of NC Legal Foundation, NC Advocates for Justice, and NC Conference of the NAACP for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of August 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, David E. Hooston hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Financial Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 11th day of May 2005.



/s/ David E. HoostonName: David E. HoostonTitle: Chief Financial Officer