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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 360 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 360

    To authorize the printing of a document entitled ``Washington's 
                          Farewell Address''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

            October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To authorize the printing of a document entitled ``Washington's 
                          Farewell Address''.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION.

    The booklet entitled ``Washington's Farewell Address'', prepared by 
the Senate Historical Office under the direction of the Secretary of 
the Senate, shall be printed as a Senate document.

SEC. 2. FORMAT.

    The Senate document described in section 1 shall include 
illustrations and shall be in the style, form, manner, and printing as 
directed by the Joint Committee on Printing after consultation with the 
Secretary of the Senate.

SEC. 3. COPIES.

    In addition to the usual number of copies, there shall be printed 
600 additional copies of the document specified in section 1 for the 
use of the Secretary of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO CENTRAL APPRAISAL

DISTRICT OF EL PASO COUNTY,

TEXAS,

Appellant

/Cross

- Appellee

,

v.

MISSION SENIOR COMMUNITY, INC.,

AND TIERRA DEL SOL HOUSING

CORPORATION,

Appellee s /Cross

- Appellant s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00085

- CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012

- DCV

- 02157)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion filed by the parties to dismiss the appeal

pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 because the dispute between them has been resolved

. We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, c osts of th e appeal

are taxed against the party incurring same

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1 (d) (absent agreement of the

parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant)

.

September 23, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                  EXHIBIT 22.1

                     SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                                                 Jurisdiction of        Parent                             Percentage
Subsidiary                                       Incorporation          Corporation                        Ownership
------------------------------------             ---------------        ------------------------           ----------
<S>                                              <C>                    <C>                                <C>

Fantastic Foods International Inc.               Nevada                 Company                            100%

NuOasis International Inc.                       Commonwealth           Company                            100%
                                                 of the Bahamas

NuOasis Properties Inc.                          Nevada                 Company                            100%

Group V Corporation (formerly,
  NuOasis Gaming, Inc.)                          Delaware               Company                            44%(3)

NuOasis Las Vegas Inc.(1)                        Colorado               Company                            100%

NuOasis Laughlin Inc.(1)                         Colorado               Company                            100%

Casino Management of America Inc.(1)             Utah                   Company                            100%

Ba-Mak Gaming International Inc.(2)              Louisiana              Group V Corporation                100%
                                                                        (formerly, NuOasis
                                                                        Gaming, Inc.)

ACI Asset Management Inc.                        Nevada                 Company                            100%

Cleopatra Palace Limited                         Ireland                NuOasis International Inc.         70%

Cleopatra's World Inc.                           British Virgin         British Virgin Islands             50%
                                                 Islands

</TABLE>

(1)      Have not commenced business.

(2)      Converted  from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 Bankruptcy  proceeding on April
         20, 1995.

(3)      Reduced to approximately 10% in June 1997 and 0 in September 1997.

                                                      [NM\10-KSB\97:63097KSB]-21
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                   Subsidiaries of Sea Pines Associates, Inc.

         Sea Pines Company, Inc., a South Carolina corporation, a wholly owned
and the only subsidiary of Sea Pines Associates, Inc. The active subsidiaries of
Sea Pines Company, Inc. are:

         (a)      Sea Pines Real Estate Company, Inc., a South Carolina
                  corporation doing business as Sea Pines Real Estate Company.

         (b)      Sea Pines Senior Living Center, Inc., a South Carolina
                  corporation.

         (c)      Sea Pines Forest Preserve Conservation Association, Inc., a
                  Delaware corporation.

         (d)      Lighthouse Realty, Inc., a South Carolina corporation.

         (e)      The Hilton Head Company, Inc., a South Carolina corporation.

         (f)      Sea Pines/TidePointe, Inc., a South Carolina corporation.

         (g)      Fifth Golf Course Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LEXINGTON INSURANCE §

COMPANY, § No. 319, 2016

§

Defendant Below- § Court Below: Superior Court 

Appellant, § of the State of Delaware

§

v. §

§

ALMAH LLC and SL GREEN § 

REALTY CORPORATION, §

§

Plaintiffs Below- §

Appellees. §

Submitted: June 21, 2016

Decided: June 28, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 28th day of June 2016, it appears to the Court that:

(1) We have before us an application for interlocutory review of a 

Superior Court decision addressing cross-motions for summary judgment in an 

insurance coverage dispute turning on issues of contract interpretation. The 

appellant’s request is based on the Superior Court’s January 27, 2016 

memorandum opinion and May 24, 2016 order denying the appellant’s motion for 

reconsideration.

1

 

1

Almah LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2016 WL 369576 (Del. Super. Jan. 27, 2016), reargument

denied, 2016 WL 3092687 (Del. Super. May 24, 2016).
(2) Under Supreme Court Rule 42, applications for interlocutory review 

are addressed to this Court’s sound discretion. In determining whether to accept 

the interlocutory appeal, this Court may consider all relevant factors, including the 

trial court’s decision of whether to certify the appeal.

(3) In a detailed order dated June 20, 2016, the Superior Court carefully 

considered the relevant factors in Rule 42(b) and explained why interlocutory 

review was not warranted. We give considerable weight to a trial judge’s 

thoughtful consideration of the Rule 42(b) factors. For the reasons stated in the 

Superior Court’s well-reasoned order, the Court determines in its discretion that 

the application for interlocutory review does not meet the requirements of 

Rule 42(b) and should be refused.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the interlocutory 

appeal is REFUSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 352

Relative to the death of Representative Herbert H. Bateman, of Virginia.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 11, 2000

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Relative to the death of Representative Herbert H. Bateman,

of Virginia.

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death

3 of the Honorable Herbert H. Bateman, late a Representa4 tive from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

5 Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these reso6 lutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an

7 enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased.

8 Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it

9 stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the mem10 ory of the deceased Representative.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER VU,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation; WILLIAM SCOTT, Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as a Police Chief of San Francisco Police Department; NICHOLAS RAINSFORD, Officer; as an

individual in his of

ficial capacity as an officer of San Francisco Police Department; ZUROSKI, First name unknown; Officer; as an individual in his official capacity as an officer of San Francisco Police Department; E. ROBERTS, Officer; as an individual in his official capaci ty as an officer of San Francisco Police Department,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 15619

D.C. No. 4:20

- cv

- 04579

- JSW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022 * *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 15619

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Peter Vu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a Fourteenth Amendmen t equal protection violation.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Vu’s action because Vu failed to allege

facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021,

1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show

that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the

plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Heb be v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010)

(although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts

sufficient to state a plausible claim).

AFFIRMED.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 287

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States policy toward

Libya, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 12, 2000

Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, and Mr. MACK)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Foreign Relations

APRIL 13, 2000

Reported by Mr. HELMS without amendment

APRIL 27, 2000

Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States

policy toward Libya, and for other purposes.

Whereas 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed in

the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over

Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988;

Whereas this bombing was one of the worst terrorist atrocities in American history;

Whereas 2 Libyan suspects in the attack are scheduled to go

on trial in The Netherlands on May 3, 2000;
2

SRES 287 ATS

Whereas the United Nations Security Council has required

Libya to cooperate throughout the trial, pay compensation to the families if the suspects are found guilty, and

end support for international terrorism before multilateral sanctions can be permanently lifted;

Whereas Libya is accused in the 1986 La Belle discotheque

bombing in Germany which resulted in the death of 2

United States servicemen;

Whereas in March 1999, 6 Libyan intelligence agents including Muammar Qadhafi’s brother-in-law, were convicted in

absentia by French courts for the bombing of UTA

Flight 772 that resulted in the death of 171 people, including 7 Americans;

Whereas restrictions on United States citizens’ travel to

Libya, known informally as a travel ban, have been in effect since December 11, 1981, as a result of ‘‘threats of

hostile acts against Americans’’ according to the Department of State;

Whereas on March 22, 4 United States State Department officials departed for Libya as part of a review of the travel

ban; and

Whereas Libyan officials have interpreted the review as a

positive signal from the United States, and according to

a senior Libyan official ‘‘the international community was

convinced that Libya’s foreign policy position was not

wrong and there is a noticeable improvement in Libya’s

relations with the world’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) Libya’s refusal to accept responsibility for

3 its role in terrorist attacks against United States
3

SRES 287 ATS

1 citizens suggests that the imminent danger to the

2 physical safety of United States travelers continues;

3 (2) the President should consult fully with Con4 gress in considering policy toward Libya, including

5 disclosure of any assurances received by the Qadhafi

6 regime relative to the judicial proceedings in The

7 Hague; and

8 (3) the travel ban and all other United States

9 restrictions on Libya should not be eased until all

10 cases of American victims of Libyan terrorism have

11 been resolved and the Government of Libya has co12 operated fully in bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                       Exhibit 21

               SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
               ------------------------------

     Yankee Gas Services Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the registrant.  It is incorporated in Connecticut and does
business under its own name.

     Yankee Energy Financial Services Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the registrant.  It is incorporated in Connecticut
and does business under its own name.

     Yankee Energy Services Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the registrant.  It is incorporated in Connecticut and does
business under its own name in Connecticut and New Jersey.

     NorConn Properties, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
registrant.  It is incorporated in Connecticut and does business
under its own name.

     R. M. Services, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
registrant.  It is incorporated in Connecticut and does business
under its own name in Connecticut. R.M. Services, Inc. does
business in Pennsylvania under the name, R.M. Connecticut
Services, Inc. and in Massachusetts under the name, REC
Management Services.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I L/ RESEARCH NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AY MOND VE L A, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. N O R B M U R P H Y ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 06- 17178 D . C. N o . CV - 0 4 - 0 0 4 9 1 - LRH /V PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rry R . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a y m ond V e l aappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng w i th p re j ud i ce hi s di vers i ty a ct i on chal l engi ng S t at e F arm L i fe Insura nce 

# FI LED JAN 12 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI L/ RESEARCH 2

C om pa ny , I nc . ’ s ( “ S t a t e F a rm ” ) r e f us a l t o pa y ac l a i m . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, T

ow nsel v. C o n tr a C o s ta C o u n ty, C a l. , 8 2 0 F. 2 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by di s m i s s i ng the a c t i on be c aus e V e l adi d notpr ope r l y s e rve S t a t e F a rm unde re i the rC a l i f orni aorN e va da la w . See C a l . C i v. P r oc . C ode § 415. 30 ( r e qui r i ng tha ts e rvi c e by m a i l be ac com pani ed by a not i ce and ackno w l edgm entof se rvi ce ); § 4 16 . 10 (r equi ri ng that p erso n al serv i ce o n a co rp o rat i o n b e o n i t s d esi g n at ed ag en tfo r serv i ce o f p ro cess or on a c orpo ra t e off

i ce r or other s peci fi ed pri nci pal ); N ev. R . C i v. P . 4(d)(1), 4( d) ( 2) ( r e qui r i ng s e rvi c e on a n i n- s t a t e of f i c e rorothe rauthor i z e d i ndi vi dua l oron the N evada S ec re t ary of S t at e) . M oreover, V el a f ai l ed t o carryhi s burden u nd er f e d e r a l la w to p r o v e th a t h e d e liv e r e d ac o p y o f th e s u m m o n s a n d th e c o m p la in t to a n i ndi vi dua l author i z e d t o r e c e i ve i ton S t a t e F a rm ’ s be ha l f unde rR ul e 4( h) ( 1) of the F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re . Se e B utc he r ’s U ni on L oc al

498 , U ni ted Food and C om m e r c i al

W orke rs v . SD CI

nv e s tm e nt

, I nc ., 7 8 8 F .2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 8 ( 9 th C i r. 19 86 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatpl ai nt i ff bear s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng thatprop er s e rvi c e w a s e f

f e c t e d) . AF F I RME D.
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 282

Congratulating the Huskies of the University of Connecticut for winning

the 2000 Women’s Basketball Championship.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 5, 2000

Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted the following

resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the Huskies of the University of Connecticut

for winning the 2000 Women’s Basketball Championship.

Whereas the University of Connecticut women’s basketball

team won its second national championship in 5 years by

defeating the University of Tennessee by the score of 71–

52;

Whereas the University of Connecticut Huskies entered the

2000 NCAA Tournament with a perfect 15–0 record in

the Big East Conference and with just one loss during

the regular season;

Whereas National Coach of the Year Geno Auriemma’s team

began the season ranked number one in the Nation and

will finish the season ranked number one in the Nation;
2

•SRES 282 ATS

Whereas the University of Connecticut Women Huskies

brought the State of Connecticut its second straight

NCAA Basketball Title, following the 1999 championship

of the University of Connecticut Men’s team;

Whereas both Shea Ralph and Svetlana Abrosimova were

chosen consensus All-Americans; Ralph was selected the

NCAA tournament’s Most Outstanding Player; Kelly

Schumacher set a championship-game record for blocked

shots with 9; and Ralph, Abrosimova, Sue Bird, and

Asjha Jones were named to the All-Tournament team;

Whereas the Huskies dominated March Madness, averaging

91.3 points and a 19-point margin of victory in the tournament;

Whereas University of Connecticut’s 19-point win over Tennessee, the other powerhouse of women’s collegiate basketball, was the second largest margin of victory ever in

a championship game;

Whereas the high caliber of the University of Connecticut

Women Huskies in both athletics and academics has

again advanced the sport of women’s basketball and provided inspiration for future generations of young female

athletes; and

Whereas the Huskies’ season of accomplishment rallied Connecticut residents of all ages, from Stamford to Storrs,

from Norwalk to Norwich, behind a common purpose and

inspired a wave of euphoria across the State: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends the Huskies of

2 the University of Connecticut for completing the 1999–
3

•SRES 282 ATS

1 2000 season with a 36–1 record and winning the 2000

2 NCAA Women’s Basketball Championship.

Æ