alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016202EN.01003401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/34

---

Article 32

(ex Article 16 TEU)

(ex Article 16 TEU)

Member States shall consult one another within the European Council and the Council on any matter of foreign and security policy of general interest in order to determine a common approach. Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.

When the European Council or the Council has defined a common approach of the Union within the meaning of the first paragraph, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Member States shall coordinate their activities within the Council.

The diplomatic missions of the Member States and the Union delegations in third countries and at international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach.

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

s0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140044

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140044 COA: 291599 Wayne CC: 05-012184 FELTON LEE BURKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nick J. Caruso, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                     
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: January 19, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    NICK J. CARUSO
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Nick J. Caruso                                      
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
October 18, 2005

26020

#### State v. Tetu

Affirmed
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1575 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to lengthen the statute of 

limitations for enforcing robocall violations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to lengthen 

the statute of limitations for enforcing robocall violations, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Robocall Enforcement 

5 Enhancement Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ROBOCALL EN7 FORCEMENT ACTIONS. 

8 (a) PROVISION OF INACCURATE CALLER IDENTIFICA9 TION INFORMATION.—Section 227(e)(5)(A)(iv) of the 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1575 IH

1 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(5)(A)(iv)) 

2 is amended— 

3 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘2-YEAR’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘3-YEAR’’; and 

5 (2) by striking ‘‘2 years’’ and inserting ‘‘3 

6 years’’. 

7 (b) USE OF AUTOMATED TELEPHONE EQUIP8 MENT.—Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Communications Act 

9 of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6)(B)) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘occurred more than 1 year’’ 

11 and inserting the following: ‘‘occurred— 

12 ‘‘(i) except as provided in clause (ii), more 

13 than 1 year’’; and 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘liability.’’ and inserting the fol15 lowing: ‘‘liability; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) in the case of a violation of section 

17 227(b)(1), more than 3 years prior to the date 

18 of issuance of the required notice or notice of 

19 apparent liability.’’. 

20 SEC. 3. IMPOSITION OF FORFEITURES WITHOUT CITA21 TIONS. 

22 Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 

23 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5)) is amended, in the second 

24 sentence— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1575 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or in the case of’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘in the case of’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

4 following: ‘‘, or in the case of a violation of section 

5 227(b)(1)’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016203EN.01002101.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/21

---

Article 44

The Commission may, with the consent of the Member States, persons and undertakings concerned, publish any investment projects communicated to it.

---
<Page>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

        Amendment No. 3 to EXCO Resources, Inc.'s 1998 Stock Option Plan


Article 5 of the EXCO Resources, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan is hereby amended
to read as follows:

"ARTICLE 5: Shares Subject to Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in
ARTICLES 13 and 14, the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be
delivered pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan is (a) three million, five
hundred thousand (3,500,000); plus (b) shares of Common Stock previously
subject to Awards which are forfeited, terminated, or expired unexercised; plus
(c) without duplication for shares counted under the immediately preceding
clause, a number of shares of Common Stock equal to the number of shares
repurchased by the Company in the open market or otherwise and having an
aggregate repurchase price no greater than the amount of cash proceeds received
by the Company from the sale of shares of Common Stock under the Plan; plus (d)
any shares of Common Stock surrendered to the Company in payment of the
exercise price of options issued under the Plan. Shares to be issued may be
made available from authorized but unissued Common Stock, Common Stock held by
the Company in its treasury, or Common Stock purchased by the Company on the
open market or otherwise. During the term of this Plan, the Company will at all
times reserve and keep available the number of shares of Common Stock that
shall be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this Plan."
May 17, 2004

23824

#### State v. Bowman

Affirmed
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1566 

To amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 to ensure online 

access to the registration statements filed under such Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Ms. JAYAPAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 

to ensure online access to the registration statements 

filed under such Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ENSURING ONLINE ACCESS TO REGISTRATION 

4 STATEMENTS. 

5 (a) REQUIRING STATEMENTS FILED BY REG6 ISTRANTS TO BE IN DIGITIZED FORMAT.—Section 2(g) 

7 of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as 

8 amended (22 U.S.C. 612(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘in 

9 electronic form’’ and inserting ‘‘in a digitized format 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1566 IH

1 which will enable the Attorney General to meet the re2 quirements of section 6(d)(1) (relating to public access to 

3 an electronic database of statements and updates)’’. 

4 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC DATABASE OF

5 REGISTRATION STATEMENTS AND UPDATES.—Section 

6 6(d)(1) of such Act (22 U.S.C. 616(d)(1)) is amended— 

7 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

8 by striking ‘‘to the extent technically practicable,’’; 

9 and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘includes 

11 the information’’ and inserting ‘‘includes in a 

12 digitized format the information’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply with respect to statements filed 

15 on or after the expiration of the 180-day period which be16 gins on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### In re John D. PEARCE, Disciplinary Proceedings.

No. 13863.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 29, 1975.

*516No appearance for John D. Pearce.

Walter R. Ellett, Murray, for Bar.

PER CURIAM:

John D. Pearce, a member of the Utah State Bar, was charged with unprofessional conduct in a complaint before the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar. The complaint alleges that Pearce was retained to represent various clients and accepted retainers in matters wherein he undertook to initiate proceedings in the courts and to pursue the same in the interests of his clients. Pearce failed to pursue the matters he was engaged to handle, and in some matters he abandoned proceedings he had initiated. In other matters he, after accepting retainers, neglected to pursue matters or to initiate proceedings on behalf of his clients as he had agreed to do. Pearce failed to return the retainers he had collected or any part thereof.

Pearce did not appear in these proceedings before the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar, and did not answer or respond to the complaint filed against him. The record indicates that Pearce has departed from the state of Utah and his present whereabouts is unknown.

The Board of Commissioners found that Pearce had violated Rule III, Canon 6, DR 6-101 (A)(3); Canon 7 DR 7-101(A)(l) and (2), and Canon 9, DR 9-101 (B)(4), Revised Rules of Discipline of Professional Conduct of the Utah State Bar. The record supports these findings.

Pursuant to the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners of the Utah State Bar, John D. Pearce is ordered suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the state of Utah, and that as a condition of his being permitted to resume the practice of law in this State, he must demonstrate his fitness to practice law and comply with prescribed standards of conduct.

Pearce is ordered to reimburse the Utah by it in connection with these proceedings. State Bar for the actual expenses incurred
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd Hamilton, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered March 13, 1990, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s trial counsel failed to raise an objection to the instance of alleged prosecutorial misconduct cited by the defendant on appeal, and therefore, the issue of law is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, People v Knight,*172 AD2d 627) and we decline to review the claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial because he was tried jointly with the codefendant *(see,*CPL 200.40 [1]). The decision to sever a case for separate trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, People v Mahboubian,*74 NY2d 174; *see, People v Watts,*159 AD2d 740). Where the proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance *(see, People v Watts, supra).*It must appear that a joint trial necessarily will, or did, result in unfair prejudice and substantial impairment to the moving party’s defense *(People v Cruz,*66 NY2d 61, *revd on other grounds*481 US 186). Here, the defendant failed to advance sufficient reasons to warrant a separate trial. Both the defendant and codefendant utilized an identification defense at trial. Both pointed out the discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony and asserted that the jury should not deem the complainant to be credible. Thus, both used identical defenses and cannot be said to have been prejudiced by the court’s failure to grant separate trials. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply624Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Kate Kelly (no... (not verified)PermalinkMay 28, 2019 - 8:42amThanks so much for this terrific lesson in architecture, engineering, and art.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
NO. 12-13-00037-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES F. SCOTT, III, § APPEAL FROM THE 402ND

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,

APPELLEE § WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court’s judgment was signed on October 16, 2012. Under 

rule of appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other 

postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due to have 

been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., November 15, 2012. Appellant 

filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, findings of fact and 

conclusions of law are not proper when, as here, the appeal is from a summary judgment, and a 

request for them does not extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. Linwood v. NCNB 

Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994). Consequently, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on 

November 15, 2012. 

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 7, 2013. Because the notice of appeal 

was not filed on or before November 15, 2012, the notice was untimely, and this court has no 

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

On February 7, 2013, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.3(a) that his notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant was further informed that if 
2

the record was not amended on or before February 19, 2013, to establish the jurisdiction of this 

court, the appeal would be dismissed. 

The February 19, 2013 deadline has now passed, and Appellant has not shown the 

jurisdiction of this court or otherwise responded to its February 7, 2013 notice. Because this 

court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

Opinion delivered February 28, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 28, 2013

NO. 12-13-00037-CV

CHARLES F. SCOTT, III,

Appellant

V.

WOOD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

 of Wood County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-202)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement No. 333-143622 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 11, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. and subsidiary, theconsolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Carrols Corporation and subsidiaries, and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. and subsidiary for the year ended December 30, 2007. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Rochester, New York 

March 11, 2008
EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                  REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT



The Board of Directors
LaserSight Incorporated:

With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 (nos. 33-96390,
33-52170, 333-16817, 333-16823, 333-62587, 333-62591, 333-84073, 333-84075,
333-42662 and 333-75216) and on Form S-3 (nos. 333-2198, 333-25237, 333-36655,
333-36837, 333-59369, 333-68495, 333-77825, 333-35822, 333-46470, 333-62634 and
333-67616) of LaserSight Incorporated, we acknowledge our awareness of the use
therein of our report dated November 9, 2002 related to our review of interim
financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                        /s/KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
November 14, 2002
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply2326Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Calvin Johnson (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 20, 2021 - 11:09amI did not like that it was destroyd either that was terrible.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
# C_2016203EN.01003801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/38

---

Article 101

The Community may, within the limits of its powers and jurisdiction, enter into obligations by concluding agreements or contracts with a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State.

Such agreements or contracts shall be negotiated by the Commission in accordance with the directives of the Council; they shall be concluded by the Commission with the approval of the Council, which shall act by a qualified majority.

Agreements or contracts whose implementation does not require action by the Council and can be effected within the limits of the relevant budget shall, however, be negotiated and concluded solely by the Commission; the Commission shall keep the Council informed.

---