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

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1460-E1461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IN RECOGNITION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 
          THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, CLEVELAND BRANCH

                                  _____
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th 
Anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, Cleveland Branch.
  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
(NAACP) was founded in 1909 by W.E.B. Du Bois, and Ida B. Wells-
Barnett, among others. The NAACP initially began as an organization 
fighting against discrimination and for protection under the law for 
African-Americans. The NAACP's mission

[[Page E1461]]

is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality 
of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.
  The Cleveland Branch of the NAACP was established in 1912 by a small 
group that consisted of a cook, machinist, engineer, caterer, janitor, 
tailor, barber and seven postal workers. By 1914, the Cleveland Branch 
had 214 members. Throughout its history, the NAACP Cleveland Branch has 
worked to end discrimination in area schools, businesses, public 
establishments, and hospitals. It has fought for equal justice from the 
law, employment opportunities and voting rights among other campaigns. 
It has been led by 32 presidents, including former Cleveland City 
Council president George Forbes, who served from 1993 to 2012. Today, 
the NAACP Cleveland Branch is comprised of 15,000 members and is led by 
James L. Hardiman.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the 
National Association of Colored People, Cleveland Branch on 100 years 
of working for civil rights.

                          ____________________
```
# Monroe - Appalachian Regional Commission

- East Tennessee Development District Executive Director Rick Yakubic Email r&#121;&#97;&#x6b;&#x75;b&#105;&#99;&#x40;&#x65;&#x74;d&#100;&#46;&#x6f;&#x72;gThe post East Tennessee Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 20, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15I0169. HERMAN ELDER v. TIFFANY HAYES et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: SU11CV0204
#### Joseph N. Fournier, Plaintiff, *v.*Birchwood Builders, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Onondaga County,

October 27, 1959.

*Raskin £ Mascaro*for defendant.

*Grossman, Grossman £ Grossman*for plaintiff.

Bert B. Lockwood, J.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint on the sole ground that, upon the face of the complaint, it appears it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint recites the fact that on April 4, 1959 plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement whereby defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to purchase certain real *653property and said written agreement contained a provision that if a binding mortgage commitment did not issue within 35 days from the agreement date, either party could declare the agreement cancelled and whereupon defendant would return to plaintiff the $3,000 down payment on said contract. The complaint further recites the fact that plaintiff has been unable to obtain a mortgage commitment and is thus unable to complete the purchase contemplated by the agreement (but the complaint does not recite that a binding mortgage commitment did not issue within 35 days from the date of the agreement). The complaint further recites the fact plaintiff has demanded refund of the $3,000 down payment from the defendant but that the defendant refused and still refuses to return same. Plaintiff further states that plaintiff has no *other*adequate remedy at law. The relief demanded in the complaint is as follows:

1. That the said contract be rescinded, vacated and set aside.

2. That the defendant be required to repay to plaintiff the sum of $3,000 with interest thereon, and that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for said sum.

3. That the plaintiff has such other and further relief as the court may seem just and proper together, with costs.

The complaint does not state plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law but states, *“*Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law ’ ’. The court does not consider whether a good cause of action at law might be spelled out from the allegations of the complaint. The complaint here is clearly framed in equity and equitable relief alone is demanded. On the basis of the facts set forth in the complaint, it appears the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law and the action does not lies in equity. *(Terner*v. *Glickstein & Turner, Inc.,*283 N. Y. 299.) The complaint, therefore, must be dismissed.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Earl B. Robinson, III, Appellant, v Hubert Steckard, as Superintendent of Groveland Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Cicoria, J. (Appeal from Judgment of Su*676preme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 10.3**

 

Summary of 2005 Executive Bonus Plan 

 

On March 23, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Atheros Communications, Inc. approved the 2005 bonus plan for the ChiefExecutive Officer and other executive officers. The bonuses of the Chief Executive Officer and each executive officer will be based on Atheros’ achievement of certain financial and non-financial corporate performance objectives. The financialcorporate performance objectives are specifically tied to corporate revenue, operating income and gross margin. The categories of the non-financial corporate performance objectives are market share, customer engagements and industry leadership,product development and operational excellence. There are three components for potential bonuses: first, a bonus of up to 25% of base salary (40% for the Chief Executive Officer) for the achievement of financial corporate performance objectives;second, a bonus of up to 10% of base salary (15% for the Chief Executive Officer) for the achievement of non-financial corporate performance objectives; and third, a bonus of up to 15% of base salary (45% for the Chief Executive Officer) for theachievement of higher levels of financial corporate performance objectives. These bonuses are expected to be paid annually.
#### People v James Wearen, III, Defendant.

— Motion to extend time to take appeal granted. Memorandum: The failure of defense counsel to comply with 22 NYCRR 1022.11 (a) constitutes "improper conduct” within the meaning of CPL 460.30. Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
# C_2008183EN.01001603.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/16

---

Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-239/08)

(2008/C 183/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/100/EC expired on the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, namely on 1 January 2007. At the time the action was brought, all the measures necessary to transpose the directive had not yet been taken or communicated to the Commission by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 363. p. 141.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 21
  SUBSIDIARIES
    OF
    POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
  Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orName of Entity

Formation101070338 Saskatchewan Ltd.

Saskatchewan175360 Canada Inc.

Canada609430 Saskatchewan Ltd.

Saskatchewan628550 Saskatchewan Ltd.

SaskatchewanAA Sulfuric Corporation

LouisianaAugusta Service Company, Inc.

DelawareCanpotex Bulk Terminals Limited

CanadaChilkap Resources Ltd.

YukonInversiones El Boldo Limitada

ChileInversiones El Coigüe S.A.

ChileInversiones El Roble Limitada

ChileInversiones El Sauce Limitada

ChileInversiones PCS Chile S.A.

ChileInversiones RAC Chile Limitada

ChileMinera Saskatchewan Limitada

ChilePCS Administration (USA), Inc.

DelawarePCS (Barbados) Holdings SRL

BarbadosPCS (Barbados) Investment Company Ltd.

BarbadosPCS (Barbados) Shipping Ltd.

BarbadosPCS Cassidy Lake Company

OntarioPCS Cassidy Lake Limited

CanadaPCS Chesapeake LLC

DelawarePCS Chile I LLC

DelawarePCS Chile II LLC

DelawarePCS Fosfatos do Brasil Ltda.

BrazilPCS Hungary Holding Limited Liability Company

HungaryPCS Industrial Products Inc.

DelawarePCS Joint Venture, Ltd.

FloridaPCS Jordan LLC

DelawarePCS L.P. Inc.

DelawarePCS LP LLC 2

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation I

TexasPCS Nitrogen Ammonia Terminal Corporation II

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Delaware LLC

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Fertilizer, L.P.

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Fertilizer Limited

TrinidadPCS Nitrogen Fertilizer Operations, Inc.

DelawarePCS Nitrogen, Inc.

DelawarePCS Nitrogen LCD Corporation

Delaware




---



##### 



Jurisdiction ofIncorporation orName of Entity

FormationPCS Nitrogen Limited

TrinidadPCS Nitrogen Ohio, L.P.

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Payroll Corporation

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Trinidad Corporation

DelawarePCS Nitrogen Trinidad Limited

TrinidadPCS Phosphate Company, Inc.

DelawarePCS Purified Phosphates

VirginiaPCS Sales (Canada) Inc.

SaskatchewanPCS Sales (Indiana), Inc.

IndianaPCS Sales (Iowa), Inc.

IowaPCS Sales (USA), Inc.

DelawarePCS USA LLC

DelawarePhosphate Holding Company, Inc.

DelawarePotash Corporation of Saskatchewan (Florida) Inc.

FloridaPotash Corporation of Saskatchewan Transport Limited

SaskatchewanPotashCorp Finance (Barbados) Limited

BarbadosPotash Holding Company, Inc.

DelawareRAC Investments Ltd.

CaymanTexasgulf Aircraft Inc.

DelawareTG Corporation

DelawareWhite Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.

Delaware
# C_2009032EN.01002002.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/20

---

Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-516/08)

(2009/C 32/33)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/70/EC expired on 15 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 214 of 4.8.2006, p. 29.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

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

I, Steve S.
Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify that:

1.    
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SIN Holdings, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report 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 with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly  report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information  included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the  financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as  of, and for, the periods
presented in this quarterly report;

4.     I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and  procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant and have:

a)     designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material  information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the  period in which this report is being
prepared;

b)     evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and  presented in this
report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this  report based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control  over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent  fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to  materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial  reporting.

5.     I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over  financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the board of  directors:

a)     all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or  operation of internal
control over financial reporting that are reasonably  likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process,  summarize and report financial
information; and

b)     any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other  employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control  over financial reporting.

| | /s/
Steve S. SinohuiSteve S. Sinohui, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial
Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4446 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4446

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 2018

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial Commission 
  Act to extend the expiration date of the Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    The Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial Commission Act 
(Public Law 114-224) is amended--
            (1) in section 7(b), by striking ``January 31, 2018'' and 
        inserting ``January 31, 2019''; and
            (2) in section 10, by striking ``September 30, 2018'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2019''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 440 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 440

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit sentencing judges in 
child sex trafficking cases to order the Attorney General to publicize 
  the name and photograph of the convicted defendants, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2017

Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself and Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to permit sentencing judges in 
child sex trafficking cases to order the Attorney General to publicize 
  the name and photograph of the convicted defendants, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Shame Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION PERTAINING TO PERSONS CONVICTED IN 
              CONNECTION WITH CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING.

    Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(f) The court may order the Attorney General to publish publicly 
the name and photograph of any person convicted under this section.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009082EN.01000901.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/9

---

Appeal brought on 12 November2008 by Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case C-488/08 P)

(2009/C 82/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Matthias Rath (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06;

| — | grant the form of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the form of order sought at first instance;

| — | order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its contested order, the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal, according to which, with regard to food supplements and dietetic substances for non-medical purposes, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘EPICAN’ notified by the appellant and the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN’.

The appellant bases his appeal on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance, he claims, based its assessment of the similarity between the goods and signs on factual mistakes. If the Court of First Instance had correctly assessed the facts, it would necessarily have concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs. This is so, in particular, because, as the Court of First Instance correctly held, consumers accord an increased level of attention to the goods which are the subject of the dispute.

---