alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lours Blatt, as Guardian ad Litem of Renee Blatt, an Infant, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 37246.)

Court of Claims,

December 23, 1959.

*935
      *Julius 8. Christensen*and *Edward C. Condon*for claimant.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Audrey Lipsett*of counsel), for defendant.

Sidney Squire, J.

Claimant’s motion for examination before trial is granted except as to those portions requiring oral testimony and records referring to professional opinions *re*Sherman Miller’s propensities, diagnoses and prognoses *(Taig*v. *State of New York,*15 Misc 2d 1098; *Boykin*v. *State of New York,*13 Misc 2d 1037, affd. 7 A D 2d 819 [3d Dept.]; *Torres*v. *State of New York,*14 Misc 2d 246).

The defendant, the State of New York, by its Director of the Brooklyn State Hospital, is directed to designate and produce its employees having knowledge of the facts herein for oral examination before trial under oath (as an adverse party) by claimant at the office of the Attorney-G-eneral of the State of New York, room 1205, 270 Broadway, in the County, City and State of New York, on January 11, 1960 at 10:00 a.m., with respect to the matters set forth in claimant’s notice of motion, dated December 7, 1959 as limited herein.

The defendant, by said director, is further directed to produce its hospital records, correspondence, etc., relating to Sherman Miller, on said examination before trial, for use pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act and section 20 and subdivision 9 of section 34 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The cited sections of the Mental Hygiene Law are utilized as a matter of judicial discretion in the interest of justice.

Short-form order signed.
# C_2008223EN.01005701.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/57

---

Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-274/08)

(2008/C 223/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, Avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision C (2008) 1711 of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision C (2008) 1711 of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision that is the subject of these proceedings is challenged in so far as it charges interest on sums to be borne by the Italian State budget pursuant to Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05 and, in particular, in so far as it accounts for interest, with effect from the date of payment of sums that are not due, on sums which have not been recovered within eight years of the date of the primary administrative or judicial procedure and where judicial proceedings are pending before the national courts or tribunals, 50 % of which is to be borne by the Member State and 50 % by the Community budget.

In support of its action, the applicant Government claims infringement of Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/05. That measure cannot be interpreted as meaning that, where recovery is being disputed in legal proceedings, interest must be charged, both because the literal wording of paragraph 5 makes no such provision (unlike paragraph 1 of that provision) and because the date from which interest runs can be established only once a judicial finding has been made.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Barry White, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB of LIVE GLOBAL BID,
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.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  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  quarterly
          report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a)   all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: February 23, 2004
/s/ Barry White
-------------------------
By: Barry White, CFO
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, William G. Gerber, President and Chief Executive Officer of Epoch
Biosciences, Inc. (the Company), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
780(d)); and  (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: March 26, 2004
    By:
    /s/ William G. GerberWilliam G. GerberPresident and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2018134EN.01003302.xml

| 16.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/33

---

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Multifit Tiernahrungs v EUIPO (MULTIFIT)

(Case T-98/18)

(2018/C 134/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark MULTIFIT — Application No 15 996 291

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 846/2017-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00177-CR

Jackie L. Stokes

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1386069D)

July 2, 2015

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

I, Robert E.Driscoll, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, of MirantAmericas Generation, LLC;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.                  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.                 Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c.                  Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the registrant’s board of managers (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a.                  All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.                 Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: August 13, 2007 |
|----------------------------|
| By:                        | /s/ ROBERT E. DRISCOLL |   |
| * *                   | Robert E. Driscoll |
| * *                   | *President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.36

[MPT LOGO]

           MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST

March 30, 2005

Jerome S. Tannenbaum, M.D., Ph.D. FACP
Chairman, President and CEO
Diversified Specialty Institutes
511 Union Street, Suite 1800
Nashville, Tennessee 37219


    RE:      AMENDMENT TO COMMITMENT LETTER FOR ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT LINE

 Dear  Dr. Tannenbaum:

         As you know, Diversified Specialty Institutes, Inc. ("DSI") and MPT
Operating Partnership, L.P. ("MPT") are parties to that certain Commitment
Letter dated March 3, 2005 (the "Commitment Letter"), relating to an acquisition
and development facility to be used to finance the acquisition of certain
existing healthcare facilities and the development of certain other healthcare
facilities. Section 1.8 of the Commitment Letter provides that the definitive
documents will provide that the Transaction must close by March 31, 2005, unless
either party requests a thirty (30) day extension. We would like to amend the
Commitment Letter by extending said date from March 31, 2005 to April 30, 2005.
Please indicate your acceptance to the foregoing amendment by signing a copy of
this letter in the space below and returning it to us. Upon our receipt of your
executed letter, Section 1.8 of the Commitment Letter shall be amended as
described herein.

                                           Sincerely,

                                           MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


                                           By: /s/ Emmett E. McLean
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Emmett E. McLean
                                               EVP and COO

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

DIVERSIFIED SPECIALTY INSTITUTES, INC.


    By: /s/ Jerome S. Tannenbaum, M.D., Ph.D.
        -------------------------------------
 Name:  Jerome S. Tannenbaum, M.D., Ph.D.
  Its:  Chairman & CEO
Dated:  3/30/05
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Reavis, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered September 11, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the suppression court’s finding that the pretrial identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive *(see, People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, *cert denied*— US —, 111 S Ct 99; *People v Floyd,*122 AD2d 71; *People v Lynch,*117 AD2d 823).

Contrary to the contention of the defendant, on the instant *851record, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to grant him a continuance as the evidence he sought to obtain was merely cumulative *(see, People v Cable,*63 NY2d 270; *People v Wood,*129 AD2d 598).

The defendant’s argument with respect to the trial court’s no adverse inference charge is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not object to the trial court’s charge as given *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836). In any event, we find that the trial court’s charge with respect to the defendant’s failure to testify was consistent with the intent of CPL 300.10 (2), did not change the meaning of the statute *(see, People v Lawton,*144 AD2d 584), and was not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury’s attention to the issue *(see, People v Davidson,*150 AD2d 717).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5480]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        TRIBUTE TO SYLVIA WOODS

 Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to 
Sylvia Woods, the ``Queen of Soul Food'' and a New York icon whose 
eponymous restaurant for decades served as a home away from home for 
scores of Harlem residents, New Yorkers, Presidents, dignitaries, 
celebrities, and visitors from all over the world.
  As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Sylvia's Restaurant, we 
celebrate the life and legacy of Sylvia Woods. Ms. Woods' big heart, 
entrepreneurial spirit, and extraordinary strength exemplified the 
vibrancy of the Harlem community she helped bring together.
  Ms. Woods was born in Hemingway, SC, in 1926. In 1954, she worked as 
a waitress at Johnson's Luncheonette in Harlem. Her mother helped Ms. 
Woods pursue her dreams by mortgaging the farm in South Carolina where 
Sylvia was born. Ms. Woods and her late husband Herbert used the 
$18,000 borrowed from her mother to buy the luncheonette in 1962 and 
founded the namesake restaurant.
  Ms. Woods' dream became an instant reality when people from all over 
the world flocked to 126th Street and Lenox Avenue to taste Sylvia's 
world-famous comfort food, including mouthwatering fried chicken, 
collard greens, and peach cobbler. Ms. Woods purchased six lots which 
took up nearly one city block on Lenox Avenue between 126th and 127th 
Streets, setting in motion the growth of the legendary soul food 
establishment. She ran the business until she retired at age 80 and had 
overseen its expansion to seat more than 450 people.
  Her famed eatery not only became a center of globally-renowned 
cuisine, but it also became a special meeting place for African-
American leaders. I fondly remember Sylvia's being one of the first 
places I visited with Rev. Al Sharpton in 2009 as Senator. I, along 
with countless others, deeply felt the love, life, and history of this 
iconic institution.
  Ms. Woods cared deeply about the community she loved and found ways 
to give back to her beloved Harlem. The Woods family created the Sylvia 
and Herbert Woods Scholarship Endowment Foundation in 2001 to provide 
scholarships to Harlem youth.
  Ms. Woods undoubtedly made an indelible impact on our great city and 
Nation. The landmark restaurant she created will continue to thrive for 
future generations of New York City families. Ms. Woods' legacy, 
accomplishments, and endearing spirit will live on in Harlem and around 
the world.

                          ____________________
```
**SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR FINAL RULE:** 

**PR OMULGATION OF AIR**  **QUALITY IMPLEMENTATI ON PLANS; ARIZONA; R** **EGIONAL HAZE AND INTERSTATE**  **VISIBILITY TRANSPORT FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATI** **ON PLAN, EPA** **- R09** **- OAR** 

**- 2013**  **- 0588**  **S UMMARY OF**  **C OSTS FOR**  **NO X**  **C ONTROLS**  Source Capital Cost

($) Annualized

Capital Cost ($/year) Annual O&M

($/year) Total Annualized

Cost ($/year) Cost

effectiveness ($/ton) TEP Sundt Unit 4 $3,079,089 $290,644 $975,124 $ 1,265,768 $3,222 Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 1 $450,000 $42, 477 $358,459 $400,936 $817 Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 2 $450,000 $42,477 $354,981 $ 397,458 $807 Phoenix Cement Kiln 4 $1,500,000 $140,000 $800,000 $ 940,000 $1,162 CalPortland Cement Kiln 4 $1,300,000 $128,000 $1,220,000 $1,350,000 $1,850

**Total** $6,779,089 $601,121 $3,708,564 $4,354,162

-

**S UMMARY OF**  **C OSTS FOR**  **SO 2**  **C ONTROLS**  Source Capital Cost

($) Annualized

Capital Cost ($/year) Annual O&M

($/year) Total Annualized

Cost ($/year) Cost

effectiveness ($/ton) TEP Sundt Unit 4 $3,250,000 $306,777 $2,482,107 $ 2,788,884 $1,857 Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 1 -- -- $ 313,096 $ 313,096 $856 Nelson Lime Plant Kiln 2 -- -- $ 458,179 $458,179 $819 Hayden Smelter $85,000,000 $8,023,399 $9,300,000 $ 17,323,399 $865 Miami Smelter $47,850,000 $4,516,701 $2,258,351 $ 6,775,052 $990 **Total** $136,100,000 $12,846,877 $14,811,733 $27,658,610

-

**T OTAL**  **C OSTS FOR**  **NO X**  **AND SO**  **2 C**  **ONTROLS** Capital Cost ($) Annualized

Capital Cost ($/year) Annual O&M

($/year) Total Annualized Cost

($/year) $142,879,089 $13,447,998 $18,520,297 $32,012,772
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4616 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4616

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 
  a temporary moratorium on the employer mandate and to provide for a 
  delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employer-
                       sponsored health coverage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2017

 Mr. Nunes (for himself and Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 
  a temporary moratorium on the employer mandate and to provide for a 
  delay in the implementation of the excise tax on high cost employer-
                       sponsored health coverage.

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

SECTION 1. MORATORIUM ON EMPLOYER MANDATE.

    Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Suspension.--This section shall not apply to any month 
beginning after December 31, 2014, and before January 1, 2019.''.

SEC. 2. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF EXCISE TAX ON HIGH COST EMPLOYER-
              SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE.

    Section 9001(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
is amended by striking ``December 31, 2019'' and inserting ``December 
31, 2020''.
                                 <all>
```