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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4357 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require certain additional budgetary 

information to be included in the annual report submitted to Congress 

on the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require certain 

additional budgetary information to be included in the 

annual report submitted to Congress on the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Missed Opportunities 

5 in Veterans Affairs Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that the Department 

8 of Veterans Affairs was established to assists veterans and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4357 IH

1 provide them with services, as necessary and as Congress 

2 sees fit. 

3 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con4 gress that— 

5 (1) veterans should be provided ample access to 

6 the necessary resources that will help them re7 integrate as civilians and continue to contribute 

8 positively to our society; 

9 (2) United States fiscal policy should ensure 

10 that there are always adequate resources to provide 

11 quality and timely support, services, and care for 

12 those who protect and serve the country; and 

13 (3) the Department of Veterans Affairs should 

14 provide an account of all denied funding that was re15 quested to assist veterans programs concerning 

16 health care, research, career development, continued 

17 education, and for other purposes. 

18 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL BUDGETARY INFORMATION TO BE IN19 CLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT ON DEPART20 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

21 Section 529 of title 38, United States Code, is 

22 amended— 

23 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

24 end; 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4357 IH

1 (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para2 graph (4); and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol4 lowing new paragraph (3): 

5 ‘‘(3) account for any denial of funding for the 

6 fiscal year for any construction project of the De7 partment of Veterans Affairs or for any program 

8 aimed at helping veterans access resources, including 

9 health care, career support, resources for homeless 

10 veterans, and research on such issues; and’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21



NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



At December 31, 2005



|                                    |  |                        |  |                        |  
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ---------------------- | -
|NAME OF CORPORATION                 |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION |  | PERCENTAGE OFOWNERSHIP |  
|The National Bank and Trust Company |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                    | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency Group, Inc.   |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                    | %
|NB&T Insurance Agency, Inc.         |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                    | %
|NB&T Statutory Trust I              |  | Ohio                   |  | 100                    | %



63
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Covalent Group, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.           
|                      |  | Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.               
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2008107EN.01001501.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/15

---

Action brought on 12 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-52/08)

(2008/C 107/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to transpose, with regard to access to the profession of notary, Directive 2005/36/EC (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 89/48/EEC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Directive 2005/36/EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to transpose, with regard to access to the profession of notary, Directive 2005/36/EC (1), which repealed and replaced Directive 89/48/EEC (2), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Directive 2005/36/EC.

1

2

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that, by failing to permit notaries from other Member States to exercise their profession in Portugal although they have the right to exercise that profession in a Member State in which it is a regulated profession or where they have exercised that profession in accordance with the applicable rules in a Member State in which it is not a regulated profession, the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2005/36.

In any event, by requiring those intending to practise as notaries to have a degree in law from a Portuguese university or an academic qualification equivalent to that required under the Portuguese law, Portugal has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 13 and 14 of that directive.

Moreover, by requiring that, before commencing their training, those intending to practise as notaries should pass public examinations intended to test their general knowledge of law, the Portuguese State has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) and 14(3)(h) of Directive 2005/36.

before

The Commission therefore considers that the Portuguese State has failed to transpose into its domestic law Directive 2005/36 so far as concerns the profession of notary.

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

1

(2)  OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.

2

---
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 6, 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00141

- CV

DANA DENISE MODIQUE , Appellant

V. BEVERLY Y. MODIQUE , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1217706

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 6, 2024 . The clerk’s
record was filed April 11, 2024

. The reporter’s record was not filed. No brief was
filed.

On May 15, 2024
, we issued a notice stating that unless appellant s filed a brief within ten days the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).
Appellant filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justice Spain and Justice Poissant.
Exhibit 32



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 Report of Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their
best knowledge:



| | 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 as of and for the periods covered
in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 |  |                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL L. BENNETT                                                           |  | /s/ FRANCIS G. MEYER                                                        
|Michael L. Bennett                                                               |  | Francis G. Meyer                                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer) |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
|                                                                                 | 
|Dated: November 10, 2005                                                         |  | Dated: November 10, 2005                                                    



This written statement set forth above
is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the company or the certifying officers.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 October 2009 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐474/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC concerning common
rules for the internal market in electricity – Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector

1.                     *Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive
2003/54 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 23(5)) (see para. 23)*

2.                     *Approximation of laws – Measures for the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market in electricity – Directive
2003/54 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54, Art. 23(2)(a)) (see para. 31)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt all the provisions necessary to comply with Article 23(2) and (5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37) – Powers of the regulatory authority in the electricity sector. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that |

–      by failing to provide that cases of refusal of access to the electricity distribution or transmission systems may be submitted
to the regulatory authority which must then issue a binding decision within a period of two months, in accordance with the
provisions of Article 23(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning
common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, and

–      by attributing to an authority other than the regulatory authority the power to define criteria which are decisive for the
calculation of tariffs as regards certain electricity transmission installations, contrary to the provisions of Article 23(2)(a)
of Directive 2003/54,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
# C_2008209EN.01007301.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/73

---

Action brought on 19 May 2008 — Bartha v Commission

(Case F-50/08)

(2008/C 209/134)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Gábor Bartha (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant's name in the reserve list of successful candidates in competition EPSO/AD/56/06.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 19 November 2007 concerning the result of the competition ‘EPSO/AD/56/06 Administrators (AD5) of Hungarian citizenship’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 19 November 2007 concerning the result of the competition ‘EPSO/AD/56/06 Administrators (AD5) of Hungarian citizenship’;

| — | Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 23 January 2008 rejecting the complaint concerning the result of the competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 23 January 2008 rejecting the complaint concerning the result of the competition;

| — | Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 31 March 2008 confirming the rejection of the complaint concerning the result of the competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 31 March 2008 confirming the rejection of the complaint concerning the result of the competition;

| — | Order the Defendant to make good the damage arising from the decisions whose annulment is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Defendant to make good the damage arising from the decisions whose annulment is sought;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Congressional Record UNUM

E PLURIBUS

United States

of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112th

 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S6021 

Vol. 158 WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 3, 2012 No. 118 

Senate 

The Senate met at 10:15 and 9 seconds 

a.m. and was called to order by the 

Honorable CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, a 

Senator from the State of Delaware. 

f 

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will please read a communication 

to the Senate from the President pro 

tempore (Mr. INOUYE). 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

U.S. SENATE, 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, 

Washington, DC, August 3, 2012. 

To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 

appoint the Honorable CHRISTOPHER A. 

COONS, a Senator from the State of Delaware, to perform the duties of the Chair. 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

President pro tempore. 

Mr. COONS thereupon assumed the 

chair as Acting President pro tempore. 

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL TUESDAY, 

AUGUST 7, 2012 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate stands adjourned 

until Tuesday, August 7, 2012, at 11 

a.m. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 10:15 and 34 

seconds a.m., adjourned until Tuesday, 

August 7, 2012, at 11 a.m. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7144

HARRY A. BARRON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONALD AMES, Superintendent, Mt. Olive, WV,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at 

Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00498)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry A. Barron, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7144 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry A. Barron seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Barron’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that 

§ 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four 

commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barron has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7144 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              REPUBLICAN HOUSE FIDDLES WHILE AMERICA BURNS

  (Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Republican do-nothing congress. With all the problems we're having in 
our Nation's transportation and infrastructure, we had a full committee 
meeting today on Amtrak food and beverage service. We could have been 
talking about critical rail issues that we left out of the surface 
transportation bill, like positive train control, the railroad 
rehabilitation improvement financing program, or the freight congestion 
plans. Or we could have been talking about real debt restructuring of 
Amtrak. We could even have gotten crazy and talked about how we were 
going to finance future transportation bills or hold a markup on a 
Water Resource Development Act. And if we really want to talk about 
food, we could have had a hearing on the repeated instances of needles 
being placed in airplane sandwiches. Most importantly, we could have 
had a hearing on the near fatal plane collision that happened just 2 
days ago at Washington National Airport.
  Once again, the Republican House fiddles while America is burning.

                          ____________________
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.36    
    


 
 

Summary Sheet for Executive Cash Compensation    
    


Base Salaries  


        The following table sets forth the base salaries for 2005 provided to our chief executive officer and four most highly compensated executive officers, which
salaries were determined by the Compensation Committee in December 2004 and remained unchanged from 2004 at the request of management: 



	Name
 
	 	2005 Base Salary

	Robert B. Grieve	 	$	341,000
	Jason A. Napolitano	 	$	221,500
	Carol T. Verser	 	$	198,000
	Joseph H. Ritter	 	$	190,000
	Michael A. Bent	 	$	157,000















QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.36


Summary Sheet for Executive Cash Compensation
# C_2010134EN.01005202.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/52

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 March 2010 — Buschak v EFILWC

(Case F-47/08) (1)

1

(Staff cases - European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Job description of the post of deputy director - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Interest in bringing proceedings - Manifestly inadmissible)

2010/C 134/87

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Willy Buschak (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Levy and C. Ronzi, lawyers, later by L. Levy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (represented by: C. Callanan, Solicitor)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Staff cases — Annulment of the decision amending the applicant's job description and an order that the defendant pay him a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Busak is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Busak is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 5.07.2008, p. 52.

1

---