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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3215 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3215

    To prohibit any person from soliciting or knowingly acquiring, 
   receiving, or accepting a donation of human fetal tissue for any 
   purpose other than disposal of the tissue if the donation affects 
 interstate commerce and the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to 
                          an induced abortion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2015

 Mr. Lamborn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit any person from soliciting or knowingly acquiring, 
   receiving, or accepting a donation of human fetal tissue for any 
   purpose other than disposal of the tissue if the donation affects 
 interstate commerce and the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to 
                          an induced abortion.

    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 ``End Trafficking of the Terminated 
Unborn Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING RESEARCH ON FETAL TISSUE 
              OBTAINED PURSUANT TO AN INDUCED ABORTION.

    Section 498A(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g-
1(a)) is amended--
            (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) Source of tissue.--Human fetal tissue may be used in 
        research carried out under paragraph (1) only if the tissue is 
        obtained pursuant to a spontaneous abortion or a stillbirth.'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
        redesigning subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and 
        (B), respectively;
            (3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``or induced''; 
        and
            (4) in subsection (g), by striking ``or induced''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION AGAINST SOLICITATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF 
              FETAL TISSUE PURSUANT TO AN INDUCED ABORTION.

    Subsection (b) of section 498B of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 289g-2) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Prohibition Against Solicitation or Acceptance of a Donation 
of Fetal Tissue Pursuant to an Abortion.--It shall be unlawful for any 
person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation 
of human fetal tissue for any purpose other than disposal of the tissue 
if the donation affects interstate commerce and the tissue will be or 
is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3136 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3136

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines relating to 
 civil fines imposed for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2015

  Mr. Blum (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Benishek) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to issue guidelines relating to 
 civil fines imposed for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, 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 ``Enforcement Transparency Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO ISSUE GUIDELINES RELATING TO FINES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall publish on 
the public Internet Web site of the Department of Agriculture 
guidelines relating to the calculation of civil fines under section 19 
of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2149) for violations of such Act (7 
U.S.C. 2131 et seq.).
    (b) Updates.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall--
            (1) update the guidelines published under paragraph (1) on 
        a quarterly basis;
            (2) not later than 10 days before making such updates, 
        publish a notice on the public Internet Web site of the 
        Department of Agriculture of such updates; and
            (3) publish such updates in the Federal Register.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 210/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.210.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 210 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 524 September 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2009.210.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 210

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 524 September 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | The Court of Auditors |
| 2009/C 210/01 | Report on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the 2006 financial year together with the replies of the European Central Bank | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

The Court of Auditors

2009/C 210/01

Report on the audit of the operational efficiency of the management of the European Central Bank for the 2006 financial year together with the replies of the European Central Bank

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          83,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,376
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,457
<PP&E>                                              34
<DEPRECIATION>                                      19
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 159,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,348
<BONDS>                                         18,222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,226
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   159,082
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,736
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,804
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 24,861
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.89
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3202 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3202

To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, popularly known as 
   the Lacey Act, to add certain species of lionfish to the list of 
 injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2015

 Mr. Clawson of Florida (for himself, Mr. Jolly, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
 Curbelo of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Diaz-Balart) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, popularly known as 
   the Lacey Act, to add certain species of lionfish to the list of 
 injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.

    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 ``Lionfish Elimination and Prevention 
Act of 2015'' or as the ``LEAP Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SPECIES OF LIONFISH TO THE LIST OF INJURIOUS 
              SPECIES THAT ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING IMPORTED OR 
              SHIPPED.

    Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after ``Dreissena polymorpha;'' the following: ``of the red 
lionfish of the species Pterois volitans; of the devil lionfish of the 
species Pterois miles; of the Hawaiian turkeyfish of the species 
Pterois sphex; of the soldier lionfish of the species Pterois russelii; 
of the clearfin lionfish of the species Pterois radiata; of the species 
Pterois paucispinula; of the frillfin turkeyfish of the species Pterois 
mombasae; of the luna lionfish of the species Pterois lunalata; of the 
mandritsa of the species Pterois brevipectoralis; of the spotfin 
lionfish of the species Pterois antennata; of the scorpionfish of the 
species Pterois andover;''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1







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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Peak Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry J. Olson, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/ Larry J. Olson

Larry J. Olson
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: July 15, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3219 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3219

  To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that post offices 
 shall comply with public accommodation standards under the Americans 
         with Disabilities Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2015

Mr. Cicilline introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that post offices 
 shall comply with public accommodation standards under the Americans 
         with Disabilities Act of 1990, 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. POST OFFICES AND AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 410(b) of title 39, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``consistent with 
        paragraph (12),'' before ``the provisions'';
            (2) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(12) with respect to any post office, the requirements of 
        title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
        U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) as if such post office was a public 
        accommodation under such title.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any post office established before, on, or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Compliance.--Any post office covered by section 
410(b)(12) of title 39, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), 
shall comply with the requirements of such section not later than the 
date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 15014.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1932.

Hubert A. McCarley, of Dallas, for appellant.

Lloyd W- Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

Robbery is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for fifty-five years.

There is before this court no statement of the facts heard upon the trial; nor are there any hills of exception complaining of the rulings of the court.

In the motion for new trial are a number of averments, the accuracy of which would depend upon the evidence, which is not in any form before this court.

There are two counts in the indictment, one charging robbery by the use of firearms, which is a capital offense; the other charging robbery by assault, omitting any reference to the use of firearms or other deadly weapons. The count charging the use of firearms having been abandoned, the court did not err in refusing a special venire. See Sweeney v. State, 103 Tex. Cr. R. 393, 281 S. W. 571.

 The verdict signed by the foreman reads as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and assess his punishment at fifty-five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.”

Complaint that this verdict is so indefinite that it will not support the judgment of conviction cannot be sustained. In Branch’s Ann. Tex. P. C., § 646, it is said: “Verdicts should receive a liberal rather than a strict construction, and if the finding of' the jury can be reasonably ascertained the verdict should be held good as to form. The object should be to ascertain the intention of the jury.”

This announcement is supported by citation of many precedents.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31338]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
Oregon

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in section IV of the 
FOTG of the NRCS in Oregon for review and comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Oregon to issue revisions to 
Conservation Practice Standards 327, Conservation Cover, and 328, 
Conservation Crop Rotation, in section IV of the State Technical Guide 
in Oregon. These practices may be used in conservation systems that 
treat highly erodible land.

DATES: Comments will be received until on or before January 8, 2001. 
Once the review and comment period is over and the standards are 
finalized, they will be placed in the individual Field Office Technical 
Guide in each field office.

ADDRESSES: Address all requests and comments to Roy M. Carlson, Jr., 
Leader for Technology, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1300, Portland, Oregon 97204. Copies of these 
standards will be made available upon written request. You may submit 
electronic requests and comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6a4b9aff8b5b7a4baa5b9b896b9a4f8a3a5b2b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62100d1b4c0103100e110d0c220d104c171106034c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy M. Carlson, Jr., 503-414-3231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Oregon will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Oregon regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of changes will be made. In Oregon, ``technical guides'' 
refers to the Field Office Technical Guide maintained at each NRCS 
Field Office in Oregon.

    Dated: December 4, 2000.
Roy M. Carlson, Jr.,
Acting State Conservationist, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 00-31338 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

Consent of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors of METRO Inc. 
 We consent
to the use of our firm name under the captions “Auditor, Transfer Agent and Registrar” and “Interest of Experts” in the Information Circular, dated October 26, 2017, contained in this registration statement on Form F-8, and
to the use therein and herein of our reports dated November 15, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of METRO Inc., which comprise the consolidated statements of financial position as at September 24, 2016 and
September 26, 2015, and the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information, incorporated
herein and in the Information Circular by reference. 
  

			
	 Ernst & Young LLP
	  	 Independent Registered
 Public Accounting
Firm

		
	 By: /s/ Ernst & Young LLP1
	  	
		
	 Montreal, Canada
	  	
	 October 30, 2017
	  	

  
  

	1 	CPA auditor. CA. Public accountancy permit no. A120803
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 17977.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

W. W. Sanders, of Gilmer, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of aggravated assault and his punishment assessed at a fine of $150.

The record is before us without a statement of facts in the absence of which we cannot properly appraise the bills of exception or the objections to the court’s charge. No defect in the indictment has been pointed out or perceived. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### ROGERS v. POTTORFF.

No. 2995.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

June 7, 1934.

W. E. Rogers, in pro. per. and John B. Howard, of El Paso, for appellant.

*610Jones, Goldstein, Hardie & Grambling, of El Paso, for appellee.

WALTHALL, Justice.

This ease presents a statutory proceeding of forcible entry and detainer, instituted in tbe justice of the peace court by S. O. Pottorff, receiver of the First National Bank, against W. E. Rogers, a tenant of one of the rooms in the bank building. Pottorff obtained judgment against Rogers in the justice court. Rogers duly appealed the case to the El Paso county court at law, where the case was tried de novo, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of Pottorff, receiver, from which judgment Rogers prosecutes this appeal.

Opinion.

In the justice court Pottorff sued to recover only the possession of the room. In the county court at law the suit was to recover the possession of the room and rents.

Under the statute no appeal lies from the county court at law to this court on the matters pertaining to the forcible entry and detainer part of the suit. Madison v. Martinez (Tes. Civ. App.) 56 S.W.(2d) 908.

Under article 3990 of the statute (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St.): “The appellee shall be permitted to prove the damages for withholding the possession of the premises from the appellee during the pendency of the appeal and the reasonable expenses of the appellee in prosecuting or defending the cause in the county court.”

The appeal from the justice court was per-_ fected, by filing the appeal bond, on the 21st day of March, 1933. Judgment was rendered in the county court at law on the 22d day of September, 1933. The jury found the rental value of the premises pending the appeal to be $120, and judgment was rendered for that amount. The court in addition to the rental value rendered judgment in favor of appellee for $50 attorney fee, of- which no complaint is made.

Appellant presents some propositions pertaining solely to the entry and detainer portion of the suit. On such we have no jurisdiction. We have considered appellant’s propositions pertaining to the rental value of the premises sued for, and find no reversible error.

Because of disqualification, Justice HIGGINS did not sit in this case.

The case is affirmed.