alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PITTSBORO MATTERS, INC., George A. Robertson, J. Turner Whitted, Christopher M. Watkins, Ducka Kelly, and Greg Ogle v. TOWN OF PITTSBORO v. Chatham Park Investors, LLC, Intervenor

No. 312P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Daniel Taylor, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chris W. Haaf, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Lacy H. Reaves, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Chatham Park Investors, LLC.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Robert E. Hornik, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Pittsboro Matters, Inc., et al.

G. Nicholas Herman, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill.

Paul S. Messick, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Town of Pittsboro.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of August 2016 by Intervenor 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 8th of December 2016."
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,009

EX PARTE BILLY G. COLVIN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11,707-A IN THE 115 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM UPSHUR 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 writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

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

assault of a child and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Colvin v. State, No. 06-96-00057-CR (Tex. App. - Texarkana, March 28, 1997). 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to advise him of his right to file petition for discretionary review pro se.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court, in which he states that at the time of
2

Applicant’s appeal the law did not require him to inform his client that he could file a pro se petition

for discretionary review. This assertion is incorrect. See Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1994), overruled in part by Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Although the trial court has not entered findings of fact or conclusions of law in this case,

the record is sufficient to show that appellate counsel failed to advise Applicant of his right to

petition for discretionary review pro se. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the

opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Sixth Court

of Appeals in Cause No. 06-96-00057-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 11,707-A from

the 115 Judicial District Court of Upshur County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary th

review with the Sixth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate

issues. 

Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: October 1, 2008

Do not publish
* 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. 08-30279

Summary Calendar

TRACY LYNN HOWARD

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ARROW INTERNATIONAL INC

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:04-CV-2327

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. This court relies upon the recitation in the record that no defendant

remains in the case other than Arrow Internationalto conclude that

we have jurisdiction of the appeal from a final judgment dismissing

the claims against Arrow.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 1, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30279

Summary Calendar

2

2. Testimony that a product could have been defective will not support

a finding that it was defective.

3. Appellant states the appeal by saying thatthe factthatthe catheter

broke with Doctor Myers’ statement (which was that the break was

likely caused by excessive force in its removal, although a defect was

a possibility), raises an issue of material fact. A possibility that a

defect existed,that could possibly have caused the product to break,

presents no factual issue for appellant’s claim.

AFFIRMED.
**Section302 Certifications**

|   | I, **Clifford T. Davis, Chief Executive Officer** of **NevsunResources Ltd.** certify that: |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 1. | Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of **Nevsun Resources Ltd.** |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:**January 10, 2013**

| By: | */s/ Clifford T. Davis* |
|-----|-------------------------|

|   | Name: **Clifford T. Davis**Title: **Chief Executive Officer** |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

----
SHAUN HACKETT, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Shaun Hackett, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG, do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Segala Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004;

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 21st  day of March, 2005



signed

_______________________
Shaun Hackett, BSc, MAusIMM, MAIG

[Seal or Stamp]
----

----

|   | **KPMG LLP      Chartered Professional Accountants**      PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street      Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3      Canada | Telephone   (604)  691-3000      Fax             (604)  691-3031      Internet       www.kpmg.ca |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

TheBoard of DirectorsNevsunResources Ltd.

We consent to the use of our reports, eachdated February 22, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included inthis annual report on Form 40-F.

Wealso consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in theRegistration Statement (No. 333-213718) on Form F-3 of Nevsun Resources Ltd.

**//s//  KPMG LLP**

Chartered Professional Accountants

February 22, 2017Vancouver, Canada

|   | KPMG LLP is a Canadian  limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of  independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG  International”), a Swiss entity.KPMG Canada provides  services to KPMG LLP. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
State of North Carolina v. Kirk James Keller

No. 368P14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 17, 2017

*769Kirk James Keller, for Keller, Kirk James.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of February 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Nash County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of February 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of February 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of February 2017."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3812 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3812

    To repeal sections 1341 and 1342 of the Patient Protection and 
                          Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2014

 Mr. Coffman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal sections 1341 and 1342 of the Patient Protection and 
                          Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Bailouts for Insurance Industry 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTIONS 1341 AND 1342 OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND 
              AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

    (a) In General.--Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18061, 18062) are each repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeals made by subsection (a) shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, but the repeal of 
sections 1341 and 1342 shall not apply to plan years and calendar 
years, respectively, beginning before such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-12.htm


 



Exhibit 10.12







MARIO NADEAU


1630 rue Richelieu


Beloeil, Qc. J3G 4S1


Tel: (514) 295-0043 




















September 15, 2012







GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC


4150 St Catherine Street West


Suite 525


Montreal. QC H3Z 2Y5







Attention; Kenneth S. Adessky












RE: Convertible Promissory Note Dated September 15, 2010 and October 15, 2010


Dear Sir,







As you are aware you executed  Convertible Promissory Notes to us for the total sum of FIFTY THOUSAND 00/100 DOLLARS ($50,000.00) which was to bear interest at 7% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months.







As stated in the Convertible Promissory Note we hereby request repayment by way of conversion into common stock of your company. We believe the conversion of $50,000 of principal, and $11,252 of accrued interest should be converted into 1,020,869 common shares based on the repayment of the Loan as of today’s date.







We thank you for your co-operation and remain







Yours Truly,












(s) Mario Nadeau







Mario Nadeau




 


 


 



Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidted Balance Sheets and the Statements of Consolidated Operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,595
<SECURITIES>                                       124
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,248
<ALLOWANCES>                                       604
<INVENTORY>                                      8,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,770
<PP&E>                                          16,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,703
<SALES>                                         41,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,084
<CGS>                                           35,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,698)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,862)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,209)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,209)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I,  Linda  Putback-Bean,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period  ended  December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained  in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material respects the
financial  condition  and  results  of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.


                                     By:/s/ Linda Putback-Bean
                                     --------------------------
                                     Linda Putback-Bean
                                     Chief Executive Officer
June 28, 2006














<PAGE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 2, 2008

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

Nos. 07‐2649 & 07‐2930

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,             Appeals from the United States

Plaintiff‐Appellee, District Court for the Southern

District of Illinois.

v.

 

JAMES E. ROLLINS, SR. and No. 05 CR 30133

RUDY SLACK,                              

             Defendants‐Appellants.       David R. Herndon,

Judge.

ORDER

The slip opinion issued in the above‐entitled cause on September 15, 2008, is

amended as follows:

On page 2 in the first full sentence, the words “50 grams or more of” are

deleted, so the sentence now reads: “This appeal is brought by two of those

trial defendants, James E. Rollins Sr. and Rudy Slack, against whom the jurors

returned verdicts of guilty on the charge of conspiracy to distribute cocaine

and cocaine base, that is, ‘crack’ cocaine.”

Footnotes 1 and 2 (although not mentioned in this correction) remain as they

are in the opinion.
The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust v. N.C. Department of Revenue

307PA15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 1, 2017

Peggy S. Vincent, Assistant Attorney General, Tenisha S. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Thomas D. Myrick, Attorney at Law, Neil T. Bloomfield, Attorney at Law, Kara N. Bitar, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

The following order has been entered on the second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 1st of February 2017 by Defendant-Appellant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of February 2017."
# C_2009055EN.01002402.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 January 2009 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

(Case T-424/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark OPTIMUM - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation to state reasons - Examination of the facts of OHIM's own motion - Articles 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 55/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2007 (Case R 288/2007-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign OPTIMUM as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
# C_2009180EN.01004502.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/45

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Last Minute Network v OHIM — Last Minute Tour (LAST MINUTE TOUR)

(Joined Cases T-114/07 and T-115/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Community figurative mark LAST MINUTE TOUR - Earlier unregistered national mark LASTMINUTE.COM - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Action for passing off - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 180/83

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Last Minute Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Last Minute SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against the Decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2), concerning cancellation proceedings between Last Minute Network Ltd and Last Minute Tour SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 February 2007 (Cases R 256/2006-2 and R 291/2006-2);

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the second head of claim of Last Minute Network Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the second head of claim of Last Minute Network Ltd;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Last Minute Network; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Last Minute Network;

| 4. | Orders Last Minute Tour SpA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Last Minute Tour SpA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
# C_2010024EN.01006903.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/69

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2009 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)

(Case T-337/07) (1)

1

2010/C 24/124

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---