alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 351 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.351
                                         Agreed to July 26, 2000        

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas the Medal of Honor was established by Congress in 1862 and is 
  the highest military declaration bestowed by the Nation;

Whereas the criteria for receiving the Medal of Honor are 
  extraordinarily stringent, requiring that an individual, while a 
  member of the Armed Forces, have ``distinguish[ed] himself 
  conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life 
  above and beyond the call of duty'' while engaged in combat and that 
  there have been at least two eyewitnesses to the act;

Whereas fewer than 155 of the approximately 3,500 Americans who have 
  been awarded the Medal of Honor are alive, including two who are 
  natives of the City of Pueblo, Colorado;

Whereas the City of Pueblo, Colorado, will be the site for the 
  September 2000 reunion of living recipients of the Medal of Honor; 
  and

Whereas during that reunion, a Medal of Honor memorial, to be known as 
  ``Heroes Plaza'', will be dedicated: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Heroes Plaza in the City of Pueblo, Colorado, is recognized, 
effective as of the September 2000 reunion of living Medal of Honor 
recipients in that city, as honoring the recipients of the Medal of 
Honor and honoring their commitment to the United States and to serving 
in the Armed Forces with courage, valor, and patriotism.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 12.1
 DynCorp International LLC
 Exhibit 12.1  Statement Regarding Computation of Ratios  Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio
 March 28,
    
    March 30,
    
    
    
    
    
    49 Days Ended
    
    April 3, 2004April 3, 2009
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    March 31, 2006
    
    April 1, 2005
    
    to Feb 11, 2005Earnings before fixed charge addition
    
    $
    114,204
    
    
    $
    74,100
    
    
    $
    56,291
    
    
    $
    45,012
    
    
    $
    (862
    )
    
    $
    94,689Add:Fixed charges
    
    
    77,114
    
    
    
    73,656
    
    
    
    78,661
    
    
    
    74,744
    
    
    
    8,637
    
    
    
    3,757Amortization of capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Less:Capitalized interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    191,318
    
    
    $
    147,756
    
    
    $
    134,952
    
    
    $
    119,756
    
    
    $
    7,775
    
    
    $
    98,446Fixed charges:Portion of rents representative of
interest factor
    
    
    18,332
    
    
    
    18,282
    
    
    
    16,765
    
    
    
    18,058
    
    
    
    583
    
    
    
    3,757Interest on indebtedness
    
    
    58,782
    
    
    
    55,374
    
    
    
    61,896
    
    
    
    56,686
    
    
    
    8,054
    
    
    
    Fixed charges
    
    
    77,114
    
    
    
    73,656
    
    
    
    78,661
    
    
    
    74,744
    
    
    
    8,637
    
    
    
    3,757Equity security unit distributions
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Combined fixed charges and Income
from continuing operations
    
    $
    191,318
    
    
    $
    147,756
    
    
    $
    134,952
    
    
    $
    119,756
    
    
    $
    7,775
    
    
    $
    98,446Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
charges and preferred stock
dividends
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.0
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    26.2
No. 53327.

protests 860350-G, etc. (New York).

#### Louis Meyers & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
No. 52785.

#### Stewart & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 53243-K, etc. (Baltimore, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 31
                                                                    ----------

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-17;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
          a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

          3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
          based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
          after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
          Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as
          set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee.


          Date: March 24, 2006


                                               /s/ Steve Bailey
                                               ----------------
                                               Steve Bailey
                                               Senior Managing Director
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-126569)and related Prospectus of Argyle Security, Inc., pertaining to theregistration of 4,075,046 shares of its common stock and 187,500 common stockpurchase warrants, of our report dated March 25, 2008, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Argyle Security, Inc., included inthis Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP

 

San Antonio, Texas

 

March 31, 2008

 

** **

** **

** **

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Central Newspapers, Inc.

The following chart lists the subsidiaries of Central Newspapers, Inc. and the 
state of incorporation of each as of March 1, 1999.

Name                                          State of Incorporation
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.                      Arizona
Indiana Newspapers, Inc.                      Indiana
Alexandria Newspapers, Inc.                   Louisiana
McCormick Graphics, Inc.                      Louisiana
Career Services, Inc.                         Arizona
Westech ExpoCorporation                       California
Home Buyer's Fair                             Arizona
National School Reporting Services, Inc.      Delaware
Carantin & Co., Inc.                          Arizona
CNE Corp                                      Arizona
CNF Corp                                      Arizona
CNT Corp                                      Arizona
# Exhibit 32

Section 1350
Certifications

---

# Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of BankGreenville Financial Corporation (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
          with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
          Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                      |  |                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |                              
|Date:  March 25, 2008 |  | By:   /s/  Russel T. Williams
|                      |  | Russel T. Williams           
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer      

|                      |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                      |  |                         
|Date:  March 25, 2008 |  | By:   /s/  Paula S. King
|                      |  | Paula S. King           
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
A90A0249.

#### WILLIAMS v. THE STATE.

(392 SE2d 297)

Birdsong, Judge.

Appellant, Kevin Williams, appeals his sentence and judgment of conviction of robbery, robbery by snatching, aggravated assault, and obstruction of an officer. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that evidence of his prior robbery was admissible as a similar transaction, and that the admission of appellant’s prior miscon*823duct, as a similar transaction, constituted an impermissible attack upon his character. *Held:*

Decided March 12, 1990.

*G. Scott Sampson,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, A. Thomas*
      *824
      *Jones, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

*823“Evidence of similar crimes is admissible where its relevance to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct *outweighs*its prejudicial impact. ‘However, before it is admissible, two conditions must be satisfied. First, there must be evidence that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the independent crime. Second, there must be sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged.’ [Cit.]” *Oller v. State,*187 Ga. App. 818 (2) (371 SE2d 455). Applying this test to the circumstances surrounding the prior robbery, we find that the evidence of similar transaction was admissible. Compare *Howard v. State,*187 Ga. App. 74 (2) (369 SE2d 271); see also *Maggard v. State,*259 Ga. 291 (2) (380 SE2d 259) (similar transaction evidence admissible to prove intent or lack of mistake although two crimes differed in some respects).

Appellant argues, inter alia, that the prior transaction was approximately two years old. “Mere lapse of time between the commission of any prior similar crimes and the commission of the offenses currently at trial does not render the evidence automatically inadmissible. [Cit.] Rather, lapse of time is a factor to be taken into consideration when *balancing*the probative value of the evidence against its potentially prejudicial impact.” *Oller,*supra at 820. We find, as a matter of law, that the potentially prejudicial impact of the similar transaction evidence did not outweigh its probative value. After examining the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. *Roney v. State,*192 Ga. App. 760, 763 (386 SE2d 412).

Appellant further argues that it was error to admit evidence of a similar robbery transaction when he had admitted his guilt to that offense in judicio. In a criminal case the burden of proof rests with the State “ ‘at all times down to the moment of [appellant’s] conviction to prove that he was guilty as charged.’ ” *Lipham v. State,*68 Ga. App. 174, 178 (3) (22 SE2d 532). An appellant cannot preclude the State from presenting evidence otherwise admissible merely by announcing in advance of the State’s case-in-chief that he will admit his guilt and by subsequently making an admission in judicio to that effect. Accordingly, we find appellant’s enumerations of error to be without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Banke, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
Case No. 13,003.

#### SMITH v. ARDEN.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 485.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1838.

Real Property — Paramount Title — Subpur-chaser — Notes—Rights op Indorser.

1. A sub-purchaser, who gets in the paramount title, is bound in equity to fulfil his contract with the first purchaser, deducting what he has been obliged to pay to get in the title.

2. The first purchaser of several lots having given his several notes for each lot respectively, w,ith the same indorser, and the lots having been resold for his default, some of the lots bringing more, and some less than the first contract price, it was *held*that the indorser was entitled to the benefit of the surplus of one to make good the deficiency of the others.

[This was an action by Clement ■ Smith against Arden’s heirs.]

Upon a motion for ratification of a' sale which had been made under a decree in this cause, and for disposition of the proceeds of the sale, the facts, by the statement of the parties, appeared to be these: Certain lots in the city of Washington had been sold under a deed of trust from D. C. Mr.' Arden became the purchaser, and gave a separate note for each lot, with J. C. R. as his indorser. Arden sold a lot to Hill, who sold it to Mr. Coyle. Arden’s note, given for the lot, was assigned to the complainant, Clement Smith; Arden failed to pay Smith; Hill failed to pay Arden, and Coyle failed to pay Hill. The lot was resold by the trustee of D. C., and at that sale Coyle became the purchaser, with notice of the sale by Arden to Hill, and of Hill’s delinquency.

On the 28th December, 1838, THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, doubting) decided that Coyle, standing in the place of Hill, with notice, must pay the purchase-money due from Hill to Arden, deducting what Coyle has paid, or is to pay, to get in the legal title. And as some of the lots sold for inore, and some for less, than the respective notes given by Arden, therefore,

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge,

not giving any opinion upon that point) decided that the indorser of Arden’s notes was entitled to the benefit of the surplus of one to make good the deficiency of the others.
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 Amended Annual Report of Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K / A for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig Hodgkins, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.








Date:   May 12, 2011
By:
/s/   Craig HodgkinsCraig Hodgkins

President and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 4.17





EXHIBIT 4.17

 

Debt Settlement Agreement





Between




San Antonios Resources Inc.




And 




[name]




 

Whereas San Antonios Resources Inc. ("Company") acknowledges
that it is indebted to [name] in the amount of {US$xx] by virtue of the fact
that [name] settled outstanding trade accounts of that amount owed by the
company, the Company agrees to issue [number] of common shares to [name] to
settle the debt.. The closing of the shares for debt settlement will take place
at the election of the Company any time on or before [date] and such closing
will be marked by the issuance of Treasury shares.

 

Agreed to on this 27th day of August, 2002 by:

 

_/s/ Antonios Kripotos___________________

Antonios Kripotos for 

SAN ANTONIOS RESOURCES INC.

 

 


/s/ signature____________________________

[name]
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

(All are Delaware entities unless otherwise indicated)



|                                               |  | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | 
|US Oncology, Inc.                              |  | 
|US Oncology Specialty, LP                      |  | 
|US Oncology Corporate, Inc.                    |  | 
|US Oncology Pharmaceutical Services, LLC       |  | 
|US Oncology Pharmacy GPO, L.P.                 |  | 
|US Oncology Research, Inc. (1)                 |  | 
|Alabama Pharmaceutical Services, LLC           |  | 
|AOR Holding Company of Indiana, Inc.           |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Arizona, Inc.        |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Indiana, Inc.        |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Missouri, Inc.       |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Oklahoma, Inc.       |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Pennsylvania, Inc.   |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Texas, Inc.          |  | 
|AOR Management Company of Virginia, Inc.       |  | 
|AOR of Texas Management Ltd. Partnership (1)   |  | 
|AOR Real Estate of Greenville LP               |  | 
|AOR Real Estate, Inc.                          |  | 
|AOR Synthetic Real Estate, Inc.                |  | 
|AORT Holding Company, Inc.                     |  | 
|California Pharmaceutical Services, LLC        |  | 
|Carrol County Cancer Center, Ltd. (3)          |  | 
|Colorado Cancer Centers, L.L.C.                |  | 
|East Indy CC, LLC (2)                          |  | 
|Florida Pharmaceutical Services, LLC           |  | 
|Greenville Radiation Care, Inc.                |  | 
|Iowa Pharmaceutical Services, LLC              |  | 
|KCCC JV, LLC                                   |  | 
|Michigan Pharmaceutical Services, LLC          |  | 
|Nebraska Pharmaceutical Services, LLC          |  | 
|New Mexico Pharmaceutical Services, LLC        |  | 
|North Carolina Pharmaceutical Services, LLC    |  | 
|Oregon Cancer Center, Ltd. (4)                 |  | 
|Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Services, LLC      |  | 
|Physician Reliance Holdings, LLC               |  | 
|Physician Reliance Network, Inc.               |  | 
|Physician Reliance, L.P. (1)                   |  | 
|PRN Physician Reliance, LLC                    |  | 
|RMCC Cancer Center, Inc.                       |  | 
|SelectPlus Oncology, LLC d/b/a SelectPlus, LLC |  | 
|Southeast Texas Cancer Centers, L.P. (1)       |  | 
|St. Louis Pharmaceutical Services, LLC         |  | 
|Texas Pharmaceutical Services, LLC             |  | 
|TOPS Pharmacy Services, Inc. (1)               |  | 
|Washington Pharmaceutical Services, LLC        |  | 



|(1) | Organized in the State of Texas
|--- | -------------------------------

|(2) | Organized in the State of Indiana
|--- | ---------------------------------

|(3) | Organized in the State of Maryland
|--- | ----------------------------------

|(4) | Organized in the State of Oregon
|--- | --------------------------------
No. 53838.

#### American Airlines *v.*United States,

protest 147121-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2022341EN.01000101.xml

| 6.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/1

---

COMMISSION STATEMENT

relating to Articles 9(1)(c) and 11(1) of the Commission Implementing Regulation setting out technical and operational specifications of the technical system for the cross-border automated exchange of evidence and application of the ‘once-only’ principle

(2022/C 341/01)

The references in Articles 9(1)(c) and 11(1) to the future solutions for powers of representation and mandates (‘when and to the extent to which solutions for representation in accordance with Regulation (EU) 910/2014 and any implementing acts adopted on its basis, have been found’) relate, in particular, to solutions going beyond the current minimum data sets of representative and represented person and covering additional semantics relating to the scope of representation or specific limitations of the mandate. The need to develop such solutions was already expressed in the conclusions of the Cooperation Network discussion that took place on 20 June 2016, reproduced in the section 2.8. NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSON REPRESENTATIVE from eIDAS SAML Attribute Profile V1.2., 31 August 2019 (1).

---

(1)  https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/wiki/download/attachments/82773108/eIDAS%20SAML%20Attribute%20Profile%20v1.2%20Final.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1571068651772&api=v2

---