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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2763 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2763

To extend the authorization for the MotorCities National Heritage Area 
           in the State of Michigan, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2021

  Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Peters) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the authorization for the MotorCities National Heritage Area 
           in the State of Michigan, 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 ``Preserving the MotorCities Heritage 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF MOTORCITIES NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AUTHORIZATION.

    The Automobile National Heritage Area Act (Public Law 105-355; 112 
Stat. 3247 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 109, by striking ``September 30, 2021'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2036''; and
            (2) in section 110--
                    (A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
    ``(a) Annual Appropriations; Limitation on Total Appropriations.--
            ``(1) Annual appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated under this title not more than $1,000,000 for any 
        fiscal year.
            ``(2) Limitation on total appropriations.--Not more than a 
        total of $23,250,000 may be appropriated for the Heritage Area 
        under this title.''; and
                    (B) in subsection (b), by adding before the period 
                ``, except that for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 the 
                matching requirement shall be waived due to negative 
                economic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1495

JUSTIN DICE, individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated; FAOUR CLEMENT, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

and

DAVID A. GARCIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION; SCOT WINGO; DAVID SPITZ; JOHN 

BAULE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00307-F)

Submitted: November 1, 2016 Decided: November 30, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob A. Goldberg, Gonen Haklay, ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, Jenkintown, 

Pennsylvania; James A. Roberts, III, LEWIS & ROBERTS, PLLC, 
2

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Lyle Roberts, COOLEY 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Justin Dice and Faour Clement appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing their complaint alleging violations of Sections 

10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 

U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78t(a) (2012). We review de novo a district 

court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), accepting 

factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all 

reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 

462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient “facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

“Under Section 10(b) of the Act, companies are prohibited 

from using any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance 

in connection with the sale of a security in violation of 

[Securities and Exchange Commission] rules.” Zak v. Chelsea 

Therapeutics Int’l, Ltd., 780 F.3d 597, 605 (4th Cir. 2015). 

Rule 10b-5 in turn prohibits making any untrue statement of a 

material fact. Id. (citing 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)). To state 

a claim for violation of § 10(b), a plaintiff must establish: 

“(1) a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant; 

(2) scienter; (3) a connection between the misrepresentation or 

omission and the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance 
4

upon the misrepresentation or omission; (5) economic loss; and 

(6) loss causation.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal 

authorities and conclude that the district court did not err in 

dismissing the Appellants’ complaint.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 29, 2016

No. 04-15-00390-CR

Rebecca Fayelayne NELSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5543

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant Rebecca Fayelayne Nelson’s motion for rehearing; 

the motion is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7457

JAMES MICHAEL MCGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGE E. SNYDER; DAVID FARMER; W. BRANCH; R. CHERRY; B. HEDSPETH; T. HOWELL; K. DUBOSE; S. DORSEY; G. SEXTON; J. AGUILAR; D. GOODMAN; D.D. DOUGLAS; M. YOUNG; S.D. STEVENSON; C. WARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States Dist rict Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00249-FL) Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Michael McGill, Appellant Pro Se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Michael McGill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McGill v. Snyder , No. 5:05-ct-00249-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00756-CR

In re Hisidoro D. RAMON, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. Relator’s motion for leave to file a 

petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT. The court’s opinion will follow at a later 

date.

It is so ORDERED on December 1, 2016.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1This proceeding arises out of Cause No. B15-33, styled State of Texas v. Hisidoro D. Ramon, Jr., pending 

in the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex Emerson presiding.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2930 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to modify 

requirements for local school wellness policies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2021 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act to modify requirements for local school wellness policies. 

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 ‘‘Improving Mental 

5 Health and Wellness in Schools Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOCAL SCHOOL WELLNESS POLICY. 

7 Section 9A of the Richard B. Russell National School 

8 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758b) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b)— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2930 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘mental 

2 health promotion and education,’’ after ‘‘phys3 ical activity,’’; 

4 (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘obe5 sity;’’ and inserting ‘‘obesity and eating dis6 orders;’’; 

7 (C) in paragraph (3)— 

8 (i) by striking ‘‘agency permit’’ and 

9 inserting the following: ‘‘agency— 

10 ‘‘(A) permit’’; 

11 (ii) in subparagraph (A) (as so des12 ignated)— 

13 (I) by inserting ‘‘registered dieti14 tians, school-based mental health serv15 ices providers,’’ after ‘‘school adminis16 trators,’’; and 

17 (II) by adding ‘‘and’’ after the 

18 semicolon at the end; and 

19 (iii) by adding at the end the fol20 lowing: 

21 ‘‘(B) establish a multidisciplinary team of 

22 school personnel to lead the development, imple23 mentation, and periodic review and updating of 

24 the local school wellness policy;’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2930 IS

1 (D) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ‘‘1’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘2’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (d)— 

4 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

5 (i) by inserting ‘‘in consultation with 

6 the Administrator of the Substance Abuse 

7 and Mental Health Services Administra8 tion,’’ after ‘‘Prevention,’’; and 

9 (ii) by inserting ‘‘school-based mental 

10 health services providers (when available),’’ 

11 after ‘‘school food authorities,’’; 

12 (B) in paragraph (2)(C)— 

13 (i) by striking ‘‘required to promote’’ 

14 and inserting the following: ‘‘required— 

15 ‘‘(i) to promote’’; and 

16 (ii) by adding at the end the fol17 lowing: 

18 ‘‘(ii) to promote mental health, en19 courage mental health assessments, and es20 tablish resilient school environments; and’’; 

21 and 

22 (C) in paragraph (3)— 

23 (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

24 ‘‘Prevention,’’ and inserting ‘‘Prevention 

25 and the Administrator of the Substance 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 2930 IS

1 Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin2 istration,’’; 

3 (ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

4 ‘‘2014,’’ and inserting ‘‘2026,’’; and 

5 (iii) by striking subparagraph (D). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0135. GABRIEL JOSEPH HESTER v. MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC.

Gabriel Joseph Hester, plaintiff in this action brought under the Fair Business

Practices Act, has filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s

(1) order vacating a prior order granting Hester’s motion to file documents under seal,

and (2) order requiring Hester’s counsel to register for e-filing. We lack jurisdiction. 

Because Hester’s claims remain pending below, he was required to follow the

interlocutory application procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include

obtaining a certificate of immediate review from the trial court, to obtain appellate

review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435 (383 SE2d 906)

(1989). Although Hester filed an application for discretionary appeal, as described

in OCGA § 5-6-35, compliance with that procedure does not excuse a party seeking

appellate review of an interlocutory order from complying with the additional

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832 (471 SE2d

213) (1996). Hester’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures

deprives us of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

11/08/2016

November 08, 2016
EXHIBIT 21



Deltic Timber Corporation

Subsidiaries of
the Registrant

As of December 31, 2004



|                                      |  |                      
|------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Subsidiaries                          |  | State ofIncorporation
|Deltic Timber Purchasers, Inc.        |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Southwest Timber Company       |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Deltic Real Estate Investment Company |  | Delaware             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Properties, Inc.               |  | Arkansas             
|                                      | 
|Chenal Country Club, Inc.             |  | Arkansas
----

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

 I, Rajesh Raniga, Chief Financial Officer of EYI Industries,  Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that, to the best of my knowledge:

|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,        for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, and to which this certification        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”) fully complies        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange        Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Report fairly        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results        of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                        |

|   | By:    | */s/ Rajesh Raniga*     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   | Name:  | Rajesh Raniga           |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  | August 16, 2004         |

*A signed original of this written statement required by  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation  language contained in such filing.*

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0456]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a document entitled “Pediatric Stakeholder Meeting; Request for Comments” that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10493). The document announced a public meeting seeking input from patient groups, consumer groups, regulated industry, academia and other interested parties to obtain any recommendations or information relevant to the report to Congress that FDA is required to submit concerning pediatrics, as outlined in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9115.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of February 26, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-03974, on page 10493, the following correction is made:                

On page 10493, in the first column, the Docket No. heading, “[Docket No. FDA-20115-N-0456]” is corrected to read “[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0456]”.

Dated: March 17, 2015.

Jill Hartzler Warner,

Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.

[FR Doc. 2015-06426 Filed 3-19-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  1.
    
    The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2, fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 Dated: March 17, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis Purcel
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
<PAGE>






                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SPG OPERATING PARTNERSHIP

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

SUBSIDIARY                                                                                      JURISDICTION
<S>                                                                                          <C>
The Retail Property Trust                                                                      Massachusetts
Simon Property Group (Illinois), L.P.                                                               Illinois
Simon Property Group (Texas), L.P.                                                                     Texas
Shopping Center Associates                                                                          New York
DeBartolo Capital Partnership                                                                       Delaware
Simon Capital Limited Partnership                                                                   Delaware
SDG Macerich Properties, L.P.                                                                       Delaware
M.S. Management Associates, Inc.                                                                    Delaware
DeBartolo Properties Management, Inc.                                                                   Ohio
Mayflower Realty LLC                                                                                Delaware
</TABLE>

         Omits names of subsidiaries which as of December 31, 2000 were not, in
the aggregate, a "significant subsidiary".
# C_2016282EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.8004 — Akzo Nobel/BASF Industrial Coatings Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 282/01)

(Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004)

On 4 July 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Akzo Nobel and BASF Industrial Coatings Business. On 29 July 2016, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
Exhibit 12
 Mariner Energy, Inc.
 
 For the Years Ended December 31,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005(in thousands, except ratio)Earnings from continuing operations before fixed
chargesIncome before taxes
    
    
    (543,779
    )
    
    
    (436,748
    )
    
    
    221,259
    
    
    
    188,806
    
    
    
    61,775Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    86,456
    
    
    
    67,308
    
    
    
    56,173
    
    
    
    40,592
    
    
    
    9,042Less: Capitalized interest
    
    
    14,661
    
    
    
    9,651
    
    
    
    474
    
    
    
    1,528
    
    
    
    703Earnings from continuing operations before fixed
charges
    
    
    (471,984
    )
    
    
    (379,091
    )
    
    
    276,958
    
    
    
    227,870
    
    
    
    70,114Fixed ChargesInterest expense, net of capitalized interest
    
    
    70,134
    
    
    
    56,399
    
    
    
    54,665
    
    
    
    38,275
    
    
    
    8,172Add: Capitalized interest
    
    
    14,661
    
    
    
    9,651
    
    
    
    474
    
    
    
    1,528
    
    
    
    703Add: Estimated interest portion of rental expenditures
    
    
    1,092
    
    
    
    689
    
    
    
    465
    
    
    
    400
    
    
    
    167Add: Amortization of discounts
    
    
    569
    
    
    
    569
    
    
    
    569
    
    
    
    389
    
    
    
    Total Fixed Charges
    
    
    86,456
    
    
    
    67,308
    
    
    
    56,173
    
    
    
    40,592
    
    
    
    9,042Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4.93
    
    
    
    5.61
    
    
    
    7.75
 
 (1)
    
    Due to loss from operations in 2009 and 2008, the ratio coverage was
less than 1:1. Mariner would have needed to generate additional
earnings of $558,440 and $446,399 respectively, to achieve a coverage
of 1:1 for that period.