alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01023501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/235 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/235

---

(2004/C 84 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3354/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 November 2003)

Subject:   Minority language groups in Greece and official statistics

Subject:

Commissioner Reding carries out her duties impeccably and her contribution towards upgrading the status of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture is clear. It appears, however, that certain members of staff within that Directorate-General do not provide her with sufficient information and the inadequacy of the answers which they draw up create a poor impression of the Commission which is totally unfounded.

In my question No E-2777/03 (1), I noted that the 1996 Euromosaic study reported (page 41 of the English version) that the number of speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian in Greece ranged between 50 000 and 80 000 and I asked who had compiled these statistics and whether they were official and reliable. The distinguished Commissioner, Mrs Reding, replied that the three drafters of the report collaborated with an expert committee comprising ten members from the Union, the USA and Canada.

1

Does the Council agree with the above statistics? What official information have the Greek authorities provided concerning speakers of Aromanian, Albanian and Slavo-Macedonian? Is it ethical not to use the official statistics of a Member State to estimate the size of certain language groups? Does the Council believe that it is not sufficient for European experts to draw up reports on language groups in the Union? What is its view of the involvement in purely European affairs (which are also extremely sensitive) of experts from countries outside the EU who express opinions on the existence or non-existence of linguistic minorities in Europe? What specific measures has the Council taken in the last ten years on behalf of the (internationally recognised and numerous) Greek minority in northern Epirus, which the Albanian regime persistently tried for almost 50 years to deprive of their language and religion?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

Concerning the statistics contained in the Euromosaic Study of 1996, the Council would stress that it is neither its role nor within its competence to pass judgement on work carried out by a third party following a call for tender by the European Commission.

As far as the situation of the Greek-speaking minority in Albania is concerned, it should be recalled that the current negotiations between the EU and Albania taking place in the context of the stabilisation and association process pay particular attention to issues of democratisation and protection of minorities. The European Commission, which received the mandate for negotiations in October 2002, could provide more detailed information in this connection.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 215.

1

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,003

EX PARTE DALE EDWARD STIVERS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 905487 IN THE 182 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

kidnapping and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends, among other things, that his plea was rendered involuntary because he

was not admonished that he would have to register as a sex offender. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

26.13(a)(5). We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of

law. On remand, the trial court found that Applicant was not aware when he pleaded guilty that he
2

would have to register as a sex offender and that had he known that he would have to register, he

would not have pleaded guilty but instead insisted on a trial. The trial court concluded that

Applicant’s plea was rendered involuntary.

We agree. Accordingly, the judgment in Cause No. 905847 in the 182 Judicial District nd

Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Harris

County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 24, 2008

Do Not Publish
# C_2008301EN.01006202.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/62

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-212/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/108)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

1

---
# C_2010063EN.01004601.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW)

(Case T-34/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark DSBW - Earlier Community word mark DSB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 63/80

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Karen Goncharov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and A. Späth, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Poch and subsequently B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: F. González Diáz and T. Graf, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DSB and Mr K. Goncharov

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Karen Goncharov to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Karen Goncharov to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2009 – MABB v Commission**

**(Case T-24/06)**

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 – Action for annulment – Not of individual concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Action brought by an authority forming an integral part of the State, not having budgetary independence and subject to State
control – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 42, 50, 52-53)

**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**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) to pay the costs. |
Keelia M. FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff, v. Sandy W. FAIRCLOTH, Defendant.

No. COA15-179.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 23, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-13432

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-20078-CV-CMA

ALPHAMED PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., 

Plaintiff- AppellantCross-Appellee, 

JOHN, JARRETT, NOREEN AND DARREN LEZDEY, 

Plaintiffs, 

versus 

ARRIVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

f.k.a. AlphaOne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 

Defendant- AppelleeCross-Appellant, 

SPINELLI CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

CTG & ASSOCIATES LLC, a Georgia limited liability 

company, et al., 

Defendants. 
Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.

2

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 23, 2008)

Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges and FORRESTER, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties and hearing

oral argument by counsel, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court based on

its well-reasoned opinion of 26 May 2006.
----

(2004/C 65 E/288)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3290/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Work-related illnesses

Could the Commission please give the reasons for its request to Member States to widen their lists of official work-related illnesses in its 19 September approval of a draft Recommendation on professional health risks?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

The Commission adopted the Recommendation concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases (1) on 19 September 2003. This Recommendation updates and replaces an existing Recommendation of 22 May 1990 (2) on the same subject, because of the need to take account of data arising from scientific and technical progress in this field, to have an up-to-date instrument in the run-up to the European Union's forthcoming enlargement, and to do justice to the special emphasis which the ‘new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’ (3) places on enhanced prevention of occupational diseases.

The new Recommendation calls on Member States to ‘introduce as soon as possible into their national laws, regulations or administrative provisions concerning scientifically recognised occupational diseases liable for compensation and subject to preventive measures, the European schedule in Annex I’.

In addition to the agents and diseases linked directly to occupation and already included in the previous Recommendation, Annex I to this Recommendation contains a further 16 diseases on whose occupational origin there is a broad scientific consensus.

During the time since the 1990 Recommendation was issued, scientific and technical progress has led to a greater understanding of how certain occupational diseases emerge and of the causal relationships involved.

The Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that the Member States were closely involved in the preparatory work for the adoption of the Recommendation by the Commission, particularly in relation to Annex I, the European schedule of occupational diseases.

In addition, the experience acquired since 1990 by monitoring the above Recommendation in the Member States has highlighted various aspects which could be improved in order to attain more fully the Recommendation's objectives, particularly in relation to prevention and to the collection and comparability of data in this field. These aspects too have been included in the new Recommendation.

The Commission feels that this new Recommendation should be the preferred instrument for effective prevention of occupational diseases in the European Union.

----

(1)OJ L 238, 25.9.2003.

(2)OJ L 160, 26.6.1990.

(3)  COM(2002) 118 final.

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,259-02

EX PARTE TIVIRUS CRAFT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11084-A IN THE 411TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TRINITY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of one count of arson, one count of tampering with evidence, and

one count of arson and sentenced to life, twenty years and two years imprisonment respectively. He

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk

forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal because the district clerk failed

to timely file the paperwork with the court of appeals, and failed to timely inform appellate counsel

of his appointment. Based on the record, Applicant is entitled to relief based on a breakdown in the

system.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may
2

file an out-of-time appeal of his conviction in cause number 11084 from the 411th District Court of

TrinityCounty. Within ten days from the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine

whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the

trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to

appeal, he must file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within thirty days from the date of

this Court’s mandate.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the TexasDepartment ofCriminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Delivered: January 17, 2024

Do not publish
**Exhibit 99.8**

**CONSENT OF GIL LAWSON**

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the “40-F”)of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the40-F. 

I hereby consent to the references to my name in connection with (including, as an expert or “qualifiedperson”) the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, including as to (i) my review and approval of all the mineral reserves, ore reserves, and mineral resources estimates as at December 31, 2014 contained in the AIF and (ii) allscientific and technical information contained therein. 

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of suchinformation contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8. 

Date: March 17, 2015
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136576(54) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

CHARLES WRIGHT, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136576 

 COA: 281918 

Washtenaw CC: 06-000800-DM 

MONICA MARIE WRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 18, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.13


 


COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


 


This
COMPENSATION AGREEMENT (the “Compensation Agreement”) is entered into as of December 3,
2010, by and between Precision Optics, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation
(the “Company”) and Joel R. Pitlor, an individual residing in Massachusetts (“Consultant”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company owes Consultant $170,000, representing
all deferred compensation due to Consultant as of the date of this Compensation
Agreement (the “Deferred Compensation”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Consultant have agreed to pay
Deferred Compensation due to Consultant via the issuance of common stock of the
Company; and


 


WHEREAS, all references to shares of the Company’s common
stock give effect to a 1 for 25 reverse stock split, effective December 11,
2008 (the “Reverse Split”).


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
undertakings set forth herein, and intending to be fully bound hereby, the
parties agree:


 


1.             Consultant will forgive the
Deferred Compensation owed to him by the Company, and in return, Company will
issue Consultant 61,818 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”).


 


2.             The Shares will be issued as
registered common stock within 5 business days upon the filling of a
Registration Statement on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, however if the Form S-8 is not filed within six months of this
agreement, the Shares will be issued as restricted common stock.


 


3.
            The shares
shall vest as follows: one eighth (1/8th) of the Shares shall vest on January 1, 2012,
and one eighth (1/8th) each quarter
thereafter on the first day of each quarter, commencing on April 1, 2012,
until the Shares are fully vested.


 


4.
            This
Compensation Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties relating
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any other agreement verbal or
written.


 


5.
            This
Compensation Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Massachusetts, without regard to conflicts of laws
principles that would result in the application of the substantive law of
another jurisdiction. This Compensation Agreement may not be amended or
modified except by an instrument in writing signed by each party.


 


The
parties agree this compensation agreement may be delivered and/or returned by
telephone facsimile in one or more counterpart copies, and the parties may rely
upon the signatures hereto whether in original or facsimile copy.


 


Dated:
December 3, 2010


 


AGREED
AND ACCEPTED


 


By:
 Consultant


 


	
  /s/Joel
  R. Pitlor

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Joel R. Pitlor

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:
   Precision Optics, Inc. and duly authorized to sign:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/Don
  Major

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
   Don Major

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
   Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-2063

FLOYD BRUCE MOBLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA; CITY OF

CHESAPEAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT; JAMES J. BLOUNT,

Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00139-JBF)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 2, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Floyd Bruce Mobley, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Brody Rashkind,

FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND & SAUNDERS, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Floyd Bruce Mobley appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mobley v.

City of Chesapeake, No. 2:06-cv-00139-JBF (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2006).

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
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


               [LETTERHEAD OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP APPEARS HERE]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 22, 1998 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K of
XcelleNet, Inc. into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on
Form S-8, File No. 33-82630, 33-82632, 33-92536, 33-92538 and 33-93384.


                                       /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                       -----------------------
                                       ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 1998
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I,James R. Kupferschmid, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     November 14, 2005 By: /s/ JAMES R. KUPFERSCHMID         James R. Kupferschmid    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer