alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0648 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0648

**Council Decision of 25 June 2002 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India (2002/648/EC) **

*
Official Journal L 213 , 09/08/2002 P. 0029 - 0029 *

Council Decision

of 25 June 2002

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India

(2002/648/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 170, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

(1) A Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of India on Partnership and Development was signed on 20 December 1993(3).

(2) The European Community and the Republic of India are pursuing specific RTD programmes in areas of common interest.

(3) On the basis of past experience, both sides have expressed a desire to establish a deeper and broader framework for the conduct of collaboration in science and technology.

(4) This cooperation agreement in the field of science and technology forms part of the global cooperation between the European Community and the Republic of India.

(5) By its Decision of 12 February 2001, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Republic of India.

(6) By its Decision of 15 November 2001, the Council decided that the Agreement be signed on behalf of the European Community.

(7) The Agreement was signed on 23 November 2001.

(8) The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement for scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of India is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

Pursuant to Article 11 of the Agreement, the President of the Council shall notify the Republic of India that the procedures necessary for the entry into force of the Agreement have been completed on the part of the European Community.

Done at Luxembourg, 25 June 2002.

For the Council

The President

J. Matas I Palou

(1) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001, p. 241.

(2) Opinion delivered on 14 May 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ L 223, 27.8.1994, p. 23.
As of April 28, 2002


Jewelcor Management, Inc.
100 North Wilkes-Barre Boulevard
Wilkes-Barre, PA  18702


Ladies and Gentlemen:

This will confirm the agreement between Jewelcor Management, Inc. (the
"Independent Contractor") and Designs, Inc. (the "Corporation")
regarding the extension of the term of the Consulting Agreement between
the Independent Contractor and the Corporation dated as of April 29,
2000 (the "Agreement"), and previously extended as of April 28, 2001
for a period of one year commencing on April 29, 2001 and ending on
April 28, 2002.

1. The term of the Agreement shall be extended for an additional period
of one (1) year commencing on April 29, 2002 and ending on April 28,
2003.  Unless the context otherwise requires, April 28, 2003 shall be
the "Expiration Date" of the Agreement as so extended.

2. Subject to the provisions of Section 4 of the Agreement, the
consideration to be furnished to the Independent Contractor by the
Corporation for the Services rendered by the Independent Contractor
under the Agreement during the period from April 29, 2002 through April
28, 2003 shall consist of (a) 60,659 non-forfeitable, fully paid and
non-assessable shares of the Corporation's Common Stock (the fair value
of which Common Stock on April 29, 2002, the date of the extension of
the Agreement as set forth herein, was $276,000 or $4.55 per share) and
(b) the reimbursement of actual and direct out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by the Independent Contractor in the rendering of Services
under the agreement.

The remaining terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect without change.  For the avoidance of doubt, the parties hereby
agree and acknowledge that the foregoing extension does not change the
compensation or other rights or obligations of the parties originally
provided in the Agreement with respect to any prior period.


                                                Very truly yours,
                                                Designs, Inc.


Agreed and Accepted:
Jewelcor Management, Inc.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5921 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to change the 

permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2016 

Mr. BUCSHON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to change the permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates. 

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 ‘‘State Age Rating 

5 Flexibility Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHANGE IN PERMISSIBLE AGE VARIATION IN 

7 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES. 

8 Section 2701(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Public Health Serv9 ice Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg(a)(1)(A)(iii)), as inserted by sec10 tion 1201(4) of Public Law 111–148, is amended by inVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:42 Aug 02, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5921.IH H5921

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5921 IH

1 serting after ‘‘3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 

2 2707(c))’’ the following: ‘‘or, for plan years beginning on 

3 or after January 1, 2018, 5 to 1 for adults (consistent 

4 with section 2707(c)) or such other ratio for adults (con5 sistent with section 2707(c)) as the State involved may 

6 provide’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Ya’shua Amen Shekhem EL BEY, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America and Alison Julie Nathan, Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Appellees

September Term, 2016

No. 16-5102 Consolidated with 16-5288

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 4, 2017

Ya’shua Amen Shekhem El Bey, Mount Vernon, NY, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.

BEFORE: Henderson and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to take judicial notice, it is

*707ORDERED that the motion to take judicial notice be denied. No motion is required for the court to consider documents that are part of the district court record. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered February 2, 2016 be affirmed. The complaint was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because a district court in one district or circuit lacks authority to review the decision of a district court in another district or circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (appeal from a renewable decision of a district court shall be taken to the “court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and six months ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 4, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael Gluk       
|                      |  | Michael Gluk           
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32003B0888 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003B0888

**2003/888/EC: European Parliament Decision of 6 November 2003 on the discharge to the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001 **

*
Official Journal L 333 , 20/12/2003 P. 0052 - 0052 *

European Parliament Decision

of 6 November 2003

on the discharge to the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001

(2003/888/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the financial statements of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work concerning the financial year 2001, together with the Agency's replies(1) (C5-0102/2003),

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 7 March 2003 (C5-0103/2003),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(2) and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 23 December 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(3) and, in particular, Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 93a and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to its decision of 8 April 2003 on the postponement of the decision concerning discharge and its resolution containing the comments accompanying that decision(4),

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A5-0360/2003),

1. Gives discharge to the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2001;

2. Records its comments in the accompanying resolution;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the accompanying resolution to the Director of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors and to have them published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

The Secretary-General

Julian Priestley

The President

Pat Cox

(1) OJ C 326, 27.12.2002, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

(4) OJ L 148, 16.6.2003, pp. 16 and 18.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 741 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 741

  To require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such actions as are 
 necessary to obtain and maintain a specified maximum high water level 
 in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 1995

 Mr. Pressler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Army Corps of Engineers to take such actions as are 
 necessary to obtain and maintain a specified maximum high water level 
 in Lake Traverse, South Dakota and Minnesota, 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. WATER LEVEL IN LAKE TRAVERSE, SOUTH DAKOTA AND MINNESOTA.

    Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the Army, acting 
through the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, shall 
take such actions as are necessary to obtain and maintain a high water 
level of not more than 977 median sea level (msl) in Lake Traverse, 
South Dakota and Minnesota.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: Jacqueline C. MELCHER, Debtor. Jacqueline C. Melcher, Debtor-Appellant, v. John W. Richardson, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 16-15817

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Jacqueline C. Melcher, Pro Se

Charles Patrick Maher, Attorney, Rin-con Law LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Trustee-Appellee

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*747MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Jacqueline C. Melcher appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Melcher’s motion to void orders of the bankruptcy court permitting the trustee to sell certain real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determinations, *Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand),*375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We review de novo an order denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void. *Exp. Grp. v. Beef Indus., Inc.,*54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Melcher’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion because Melcher failed to establish that the bankruptcy court “lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” *United States v. Berke,*170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999); *see also*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (applying Rule 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions); *United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa,*559 U.S. 260, 271, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (“Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.”). Contrary to Melcher’s contentions, the proceedings at issue did not violate her due process rights because the record shows that she received adequate notice of the hearing on the trustee’s motion under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(4), and an opportunity to be heard.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Melcher’s motion to correct the record (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

|   | 1. | The annual report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Michael Katz              |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Michael Katz                  |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
| Dated: March 21, 2011         |   |

|   | 1. | The annual report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Roger Clark               |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Roger Clark                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer) |   |
| Dated: March 21, 2011         |   |

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,
As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
November 3, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ F. Clay Creasey, Jr.F. Clay Creasey, Jr.Executive Vice President -
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Leonard F. Ferro, Chief Accounting Officer of Galey & Lord, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Leonard F. Ferro                                     
|Leonard F. Ferro Chief Accounting Officer August 12, 2003



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 799 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 799

  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2015

   Mr. Nolan (for himself, Mr. Welch, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Ellison, Mr. 
  Peterson, Mr. Walz, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Paulsen, and Ms. 
  McCollum) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic 
Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 
   connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, 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 ``North Country National Scenic Trail 
Route Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT.

    Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``thirty two hundred miles, extending from 
        eastern New York State'' and inserting ``4,600 miles, extending 
        from the Appalachian Trail in Vermont''; and
            (2) by striking ``Proposed North Country Trail'' and all 
        that follows through ``June 1975.'' and inserting ```North 
        Country National Scenic Trail, Authorized Route' dated February 
        2014, and numbered 649/116870.''.
                                 <all>
```
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00342

- CV

R. M. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUS TICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the de novo decree of termination signed by the tr i a l court on July 6,

2021

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s decree

. Therefore, the C ourt affir ms the trial court’ s de novo

decree terminati ng parental rights

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no

adjudica t i on of costs is made.