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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 139 Referred in House (RFH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 139

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2015

  Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To permanently allow an exclusion under the Supplemental Security 
 Income program and the Medicaid program for compensation provided to 
  individuals who participate in clinical trials for rare diseases or 
                              conditions.

    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 ``Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    Effective as if included in the enactment of the Improving Access 
to Clinical Trials Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-255, 124 Stat. 2640), 
section 3 of that Act is amended by striking subsection (e).

            Passed the Senate July 16, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6930** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHN DAVID ANDERSON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:00

- cr - 00033

- BEL

- 1 ; 1:07

- cv - 00234

- BEL )

Submitted : November 8, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed b y un published per curiam opinion
. John David Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph Clarke , Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : John David Anderson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order s denying his motion for reconsideration and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (3), (6) motion for relief from the district court ’ s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2 011 ) motion. The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debata ble or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is d ebatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a ce rtificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries of SK Telecom Co., Ltd.

(As of December 31, 2011)



|                                        |  |                              
|--------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                         |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|SK Telink Co., Ltd.                     |  | Korea                        
|SK Communications Co., Ltd.             |  | Korea                        
|PAXNet Co., Ltd.                        |  | Korea                        
|Loen Entertainment, Inc.                |  | Korea                        
|Stonebridge Cinema Fund                 |  | Korea                        
|Ntreev Soft Co., Ltd.                   |  | Korea                        
|Commerce Planet Co., Ltd.               |  | Korea                        
|SK Broadband Co., Ltd.                  |  | Korea                        
|Broadband D&M Co., Ltd.                 |  | Korea                        
|Broadband Media Co., Ltd.               |  | Korea                        
|Broadband CS Co., Ltd.                  |  | Korea                        
|K-net Culture and Contents Venture Fund |  | Korea                        
|2nd Benex Focus Investment Fund         |  | Korea                        
|Open Innovation Fund                    |  | Korea                        
|PS&Marketing Corporation                |  | Korea                        
|Service Ace Co., Ltd.                   |  | Korea                        
|Service Top Co., Ltd.                   |  | Korea                        
|Network O&S Co., Ltd.                   |  | Korea                        
|BNCP Co., Ltd.                          |  | Korea                        
|Service-In Co., Ltd.                    |  | Korea                        
|SK Planet Co., Ltd.                     |  | Korea                        
|SK Telecom China Holdings Co., Ltd.     |  | China                        
|Sky Property Mgmt., Ltd.                |  | China                        
|Shenzhen E-eye High Tech Co., Ltd.      |  | China                        
|SK China Real Estate Co., Ltd.          |  | Hong Kong                    
|SKT Vietnam PTE., Ltd.                  |  | Singapore                    
|SKT Americas, Inc.                      |  | U.S.A.                       
|YTK Investment Ltd                      |  | Cayman Islands               
|Atlas Investment                        |  | Cayman Islands               
|Technology Innovation Partners, L.P     |  | Cayman Islands               
|SK Telecom China Fund I L.P.            |  | Cayman Islands
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1499 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1499

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide eligibility under 
 certain highway programs for projects for the installation of vehicle-
   to-infrastructure communication equipment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 3, 2015

 Mr. Peters (for himself, Mr. Blunt, and Ms. Stabenow) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide eligibility under 
 certain highway programs for projects for the installation of vehicle-
   to-infrastructure communication equipment, 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 ``Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Safety 
Technology Investment Flexibility Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. VEHICLE-TO-INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT PROJECTS.

    (a) Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communication Equipment Defined.--
Section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
            ``(35) Vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment.--
        The term `vehicle-to-infrastructure communication equipment' 
        means equipment that provides a wireless exchange of critical 
        safety and operational data between highway infrastructure and 
        vehicles, intended primarily to avoid or mitigate vehicle 
        collisions and enable a wide range of other safety, mobility, 
        and environmental benefits.''.
    (b) Eligible Projects Under National Highway Performance Program.--
Section 119(d)(2) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(Q) Installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure 
                communication equipment.''.
    (c) Eligible Projects Under Surface Transportation Program.--
Section 133(b) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(27) Installation of vehicle-to-infrastructure 
        communication equipment.''.
    (d) Eligible Projects Under Highway Safety Improvement Program.--
Section 148(a)(4)(B) of such title is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                            ``(xxv) Installation of vehicle-to-
                        infrastructure communication equipment.''.
                                 <all>
```
Filed 2/3/ 16 P. v. Walker CA2/5

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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D ARNELL DAVONE WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant. B268122

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA180270)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Morris B. Jones,

Judge. Dismissed.

Paul R. Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Steven Mercer, Deputy Attorney General

, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant, Darnel Davone Walker, appeals from an order denying his motion to

modify the judgment. We previously affirmed the jud gment. ( People v. Walker (Feb. 15,

2001, B137988) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant seeks to modify the judgment to convert

certain fines into days of custody. We recognized that an order denying such a motion

may not be appealable. We have a duty to raise is sues concerning our jurisdiction on our

own motion. ( Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126; Olson v. Cory (1983) 35

Cal.3d 390, 398.) We thus issued an order to show cause and placed the matter on

calendar. The denial of a motion to modify the judgment is ordinarily nonappealable.

( People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32, 34, fn. 1; People v. Cantrell (1961) 197

Cal.App.2d 40, 43.) Thus, we have no jurisdiction over defendant’s purported appeal

.

( In re Mario C . (20 04) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307 [ “ a reviewing court is ‘ without

jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a nonappealable order, and has the duty to dismiss

such an appeal upon its own motion ’”]; People v. Benavides (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 100,

103 [“We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order.”].)

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J.

BAKER, J.
#### Duluth Log Company, Appellant, vs. St. Croix Land Company, Respondent.

*February 4*

February *21, 1911.*

*Replevin: Logs and timber: Consent to cutting: Estoppel.*

In an action of replevin for timber, the holding of the trial court is sustained, to the effect that there was no evidence of consent by defendant to the cutting of timber from its land or of facts which would estop defendant from claiming that no consent was given.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: A. J. ViNje, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Archibald McKay,*and for the respondent on that of *George C. Cooper.*

WiNslow, C. J.

The plaintiff brought replevin for a •quantity of logs, poles, etc., cut and lying upon two eighty-acre tracts of land. The defendant owned the lands on which *287the logs and poles were piled and from which they were cut and also claimed to own the logs and poles themselves. A verdict for the defendant was directed by the court, and from judgment thereon the plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff claimed title to the property by purchase from two men named Curtis and Henderson, .who were in possession of the two eighties respectively from November, 1905, until September, 1906, and in fact cut the timber and sold it to the plaintiff in the summer of 1906. These men were in possession of their respective parcels as prospective purchasers, Henderson under a written option to purchase at $8.50 per acre in certain fixed instalments, and Curtis under an oral arrangement to pay $9 per acre therefor, the times of payment not being fixed. There was no written contract to convey in either case. It was admitted that Henderson was given permission to cut some timber in the winter of 1905 and 1906 and that he did so and sold and delivered the same. It is claimed that there was some evidence tending to show an implied consent on the part of the defendant that Henderson and Curtis might cut and sell the timber in question in the following summer, or at least that the defendant’s officers knew of the cutting and did not object and are now estopped from claiming that there was no consent given. The trial judge held that there was no evidence of such consent, or of facts which would create an estoppel, and after careful examination of the evidence we cannot say that his conclusion was wrong.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

ViNJE, J., took no part.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 15, 2020

Order 

Clerk

July 15, 2020

161349

DAVID CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 161349

v COA: 350849 

Ingham CC: 19-000446-NZ

CORIZON HEALTH INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, given plaintiff-appellant’s failure to pay the initial 

partial filing fee as required by the June 8, 2020 order, the Clerk of the Court is directed to 

administratively close this file. The application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Supreme Industries, Inc.(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27,2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| DATE: November 10, 2008 |   | /s/ Herbert M. Gardner  |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   | Herbert M. Gardner      |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Qpursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Training Grants for Medical Students.
    Date: March 23, 2015.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DRPH, National 
Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 
2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7704, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aae7e3e1e2ebe3e6e3eae7ebe3e684e4e3e284ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5989c9e9d949c999c9598949c99fb9b9c9dfb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
Melanie J. Gray,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03634 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 12.1



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302



I, Peer M. Schatz, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report of QIAGEN N.V. on Form 20-F;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 procedures and presented in this report our 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which 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.



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2004                         
|                                             
|/s/ Peer M. Schatz                           
|                                             
|Peer M. Schatz                               
|Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer