alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RONALDO WILLIAMS

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. §

§ No. 434 , 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID Nos. 1 2 0301 7926 and

§ 1 205011732

§

Submitted: October 27 , 2015

Decided: December 14 , 2015

Before HOLLAND

, VALIHURA , and VAUGHN

, Justices

.

O R D E R

This 14 th day of December 2015

, the Court has carefully consider ed the

appellant’s opening brief , the State’s motion to affirm, and the record on appeal.

The appellant, who pled guilty to offenses involving the possession of illegal

drugs, appeal s the dismissal of his Rule 61 motion for postconviction relief . In

severa l prior cases, this Court has rejected various iterations of the same arguments

presented in this appeal. 1 For the reasons stated in those cases, we affirm the

Superior Court’s denial of postconviction relief in this appeal. T he appellant ’ s

1 See Aricidiacono v. State , __ A.3d __, 2015 WL 5933984, at *3

– 4 (Del. Oct. 12, 2015); Anzara

Brown v. State , 117 A.3d 568, 581 (Del. 2015); Ira Brown v. State , 108 A.3d 1201, 1205

– 06

(Del. 2015); State v. Jones , 2015 WL 6746873, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4 , 2015) ; Turnage v. State , 2015

WL 6746644, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015) ; Brewer v. State , 2015 WL 4606541, at *2

– 3 (Del. July

30, 2015) ; McMillan v. State , 2015 WL 3444673, at *2 (Del. May 27, 2015); Patrick L. Brown v.

State , 2015 WL 3372271, at *2 (Del. May 22, 2015) ; Carrero v. State , 2015 WL 3367 940, at *2

(Del. May 21, 2015).2

petition was procedurally barred as untimely, and he failed to overcome that

procedural hurdle.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### Ex parte Quillian, Appellant, *v.*Sweeney, Sheriff. Ex parte Woodall, Appellant, *v.*Sweeney, Sheriff.

(Nos. 31866 and 31867

Decided October 26, 1949.)

*Mr. Frank C. Lyons,*for appellants.

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Miss Gertrude M. Bauer,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Zimmerman, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-45547, 333-01951, 033-60051, 033-58329 and 033-58321 on Form S-8 and No.
333-67985 on Form S-3 of AmeriSource Health Corporation, of our report dated
November 3, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of AmeriSource Health Corporation and subsidiaries included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1999.




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 22, 1999
Phytophthora ramorum specific informa�on to include in a PPQ Form 391. Please use fillable form 

found here: htps://www.aphis.usda.gov/library/forms/pdf/PPQ_Form_391.pdf
Addi�onal informa�on on distribu�on of form. Please print the fillable form 391 to 

submit with the sample, send the fillable form electronically to the lab, and save the 

fillable form for your records.
# Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site Related Environmental Assessment Program 3M and Dyneon LLC Decatur, Alabama

Raw Data Appendices: April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 Quarterly Status Report 

## Volume 1 GLP10-01-01 INTERIM REPORT 26 GLP10-01-01 INTERIM REPORT 27 GLP10-01-01 INTERIM REPORT 28 GLP10-01-01 INTERIM REPORT 29

11P-0094-v2-1 one 3M Company St. Paul, Minnesota

®
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1051 

To include county and municipal correctional facilities among medical facilities 

that qualify for designation as health professional shortage areas for 

purposes of the National Health Service Corps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. DURBIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To include county and municipal correctional facilities among 

medical facilities that qualify for designation as health 

professional shortage areas for purposes of the National 

Health Service Corps. 

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 ‘‘National Health Serv5 ice Corps Expansion Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAL FACILITIES. 

7 Section 332(a)(2) of the Public Health Service Act 

8 (42 U.S.C. 254e(a)(2)) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1051 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘(includ2 ing care provided by a city or county health depart3 ment to inmates of a county or municipal jail)’’ after 

4 ‘‘county health department’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘State 

6 correctional institution’’ and inserting ‘‘State, coun7 ty, or municipal correctional institution’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21


         SUBSIDIARIES  OF CORNERSTONE  REALTY INCOME TRUST,  INC. The Company is
the sole member of CRIT-NC, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company.

         The  Company  is  the  sole  general  partner  of  and  owns  1,403,445
Partnership  Units in Cornerstone REIT Limited  Partnership,  a Virginia limited
partnership.  Cape Landing  Apartments,  LLC, a North Carolina limited liability
company  (which is not an affiliate of the Company) is the sole limited  partner
of and owns 185,887 Partnership Units in Cornerstone REIT Limited Partnership.

         The Company owns all of the issued preferred shares (consisting in each
case of 100 preferred  shares) of Apple Residential  Management  Group,  Inc., a
Virginia  corporation,   and  Apple  Residential  Advisors,   Inc.,  a  Virginia
corporation.  All of the issued common shares of these corporations  (consisting
in each case of 100 common shares) are owned by Glade M. Knight.
#### State v. Carle

19160

2/10/98

Vacated and Remanded
Item_5.2.6.2_Use of the terms ‘fetal’, ‘foetal’, ‘fetus’ and ‘foetus’ / page 1

Annex 4

TERMINOLOGY: USE OF THE TERMS‘COMPETENT AUTHORITY’, ‘VETERINARY AUTHORITY’, ‘VETERINARY SERVICES’

USER'S GUIDE

[...]

C*.*Specific issues

[...]

6.	International veterinary certificates

An international veterinary certificate is an official document that the Veterinary Authority of an exporting country issues in accordance with Chapters 5.1. and 5.2. It lists animal health requirements and, where appropriate, public health requirements for the exported commodity. The quality of the exporting country's Veterinary Services is essential in providing assurances to trading partners regarding the safety of exported animals and products. This includes the ~~Veterinary Services'~~Veterinary Authority’s ethical approach to the provision of veterinary certificates and their history in meeting their notification obligations.

[...]

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons                               ( print page 87839)                            are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.                    

# DATES:

See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-6922; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *https://ofac.treasury.gov/​*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action

On December 8, 2023, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below. 

Dated: December 8, 2023.

Bradley T. Smith,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 2023-27849 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The  undersigned,  Robert A. Bourne,  the  President and Treasurer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund VII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.


Date: March 25, 2004

                                        /s/ Robert A. Bourne
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Robert A. Bourne
                                        Title: President and Treasurer


                                        A  signed   original  of  this   written
                                        statement  required  by Section  906 has
                                        been  provided  to CNL Income  Fund VII,
                                        Ltd.  and will be retained by CNL Income
                                        Fund  VII,  Ltd.  and  furnished  to the
                                        Securities  and Exchange  Commission  or
                                        its staff upon request.
Filed 9/21/16 P. v. Duarte CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERTO DUARTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B268072

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA064491)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Lisa M. Chung, Judge. 

Gideon Margolis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

________________________________________
2

Appellant is an inmate at a state correctional facility in Lancaster, California. 

On June 30, 2013, while in a public visiting area, appellant was caught on 

surveillance camera acting in a manner consistent with concealing an item in a 

body cavity. After correctional officers searched appellant, they seized a bindle 

containing 11.425 grams of heroin and 0.797 grams of methamphetamine. 

A jury found appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance, viz., 

heroin, while in a state prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a)). After waiving a 

jury trial on prior allegations, appellant admitted having been convicted of two 

prior “strikes” within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 

subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court granted appellant’s motion 

to strike one “strike” pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 

13 Cal.4th 497, and sentenced him to serve a total of six years in state prison. 

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. After examining the record, 

appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but asking this court to 

independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On 

June 9, 2016, we advised appellant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief 

or letter any contentions or argument he wished this court to consider. No 

response was received.

This court has examined the entire record in accordance with People v. 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442, and is satisfied appellant’s attorney has 

fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel, and no arguable issues exist. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
3

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

MANELLA, J. 

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

COLLINS, J.
# C_2021481EN.01001001.xml

| 29.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 481/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 481/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa — Romania) — TS, UT, VU v Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Constanţa

(Case C-538/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Sickness insurance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 20(1) and (2) - Medical treatment received in a Member State other than that in which the insured person resides - Prior authorisation - Conditions - Requirement for a report prescribing treatment, drawn up by a doctor of the national public sickness insurance scheme - Prescription, by way of a second medical opinion, drawn up in a Member State other than that in which the insured person resides, of an alternative treatment which has the advantage of not causing a disability - Full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in respect of that alternative treatment - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU)

(2021/C 481/13)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants and appellants: TS, UT, VU

Defendants and respondents: Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa de Asigurări de Sănătate Constanţa

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, read in conjunction with Article 56 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that an insured person who has received, in a Member State other than that in which he or she resides, treatment that is among the benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, is entitled to full reimbursement of the expenses for that treatment, under the conditions laid down in that regulation, where that person could not obtain authorisation from the competent institution in accordance with Article 20(1) of that regulation on the ground that, even though the diagnosis and the need to administer treatment as a matter of urgency had been confirmed by a doctor belonging to the sickness insurance scheme of his or her Member State of residence, that doctor had prescribed him or her a different treatment as compared to the treatment which that person chose in accordance with a second medical opinion, drawn up by a doctor in another Member State, and which, unlike the former treatment, does not give rise to a disability.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 60 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Small Business 

in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2015 

Mr. CHABOT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Small Business in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Small Business 

4 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Com5 mittee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there 

6 shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House 

7 of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 

8 not more than $6,300,544.30 for the One Hundred Four9 teenth Congress. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HRES 60 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $3,128,750 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2015, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2016; and 

7 (2) not more than $3,171,794.30 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2016, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2017. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2018364EN.01001201.xml

| 8.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/12

---

Action brought on 19 June 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-375/18)

(2018/C 364/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan, notified on 20 March 2018, is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan, notified on 20 March 2018, is unlawful;

| — | annul that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul that decision;

| — | annul both implicit decisions rejecting the complaints submitted to the President of the European Parliament and the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 2 May 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul both implicit decisions rejecting the complaints submitted to the President of the European Parliament and the Secretary-General of the European Parliament on 2 May 2018;

| — | revoke the acts and measures adopted after the abovementioned acts; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the acts and measures adopted after the abovementioned acts;

| — | award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 in compensation for the non-material harm he suffered as a result of his being excluded from the parliamentary visit and the failure to have regard to the compensation to which he was entitled; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 in compensation for the non-material harm he suffered as a result of his being excluded from the parliamentary visit and the failure to have regard to the compensation to which he was entitled;

| — | also award him the amount of EUR 3 500 in compensation for the expenses incurred in preparing this action, and |
| --- | --- |

—

also award him the amount of EUR 3 500 in compensation for the expenses incurred in preparing this action, and

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the implementing provisions governing the work of delegations and missions of Members of the European Parliament outside the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the implementing provisions governing the work of delegations and missions of Members of the European Parliament outside the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law: breach of the right to an effective remedy and to good administration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: breach of the right to an effective remedy and to good administration.

---