alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subsidiaries of The Medicines Company
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation or OrganizationMDCO Holdings C.V.
    
    NetherlandsTarganta Development, L.P.
    
    Cayman IslandsTarganta Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareTarganta Netherlands B.V.
    
    NetherlandsTarganta Research, LLC
    
    DelawareTarganta Securities Corporation
    
    MassachusettsTarganta Therapeutics Corporation
    
    DelawareTarganta Therapeutics Inc.
    
    CanadaThe Medicines Company France SAS
    
    FranceThe Medicines Company Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareThe Medicines Company (Australia) Pty Limited
    
    AustraliaThe Medicines Company (Austria) GmbH
    
    AustriaThe Medicines Company (Belgium) SPRL/BVBA
    
    BelgiumThe Medicines Company (Denmark) ApS
    
    DenmarkThe Medicines Company (Deutschland) GmbH
    
    GermanyThe Medicines Company (Finland) Oy
    
    FinlandThe Medicines Company (Italy) S.r.l.
    
    ItalyThe Medicines Company (Leipzig) GmbH
    
    GermanyThe Medicines Company (Netherlands) BV
    
    NetherlandsThe Medicines Company (New Zealand) Limited
    
    New ZealandThe Medicines Company (NL) B.V.
    
    NetherlandsThe Medicines Company (Norway) AS
    
    NorwayThe Medicines Company (Poland) Sp.z.o.o.
    
    PolandThe Medicines Company (Schweiz) GmbH
    
    SwitzerlandThe Medicines Company (Spain) S.L.
    
    SpainThe Medicines Company (Sweden) AB
    
    SwedenThe Medicines Company UK Limited
    
    England and Wales
Zachary Joseph Howard PEREZ, Appellant, v. Nathaly MARTINEZ, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D18-1913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 249 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 249

   Expressing support for the designation of July 2023 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2023

   Mr. Johnson (for himself and Mr. Rounds) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for the designation of July 2023 as ``National 
                       Sarcoma Awareness Month''.

Whereas sarcoma is a rare cancer of the bones or connective tissues, such as 
        nerves, muscles, joints, fat, and blood vessels, that can arise nearly 
        anywhere in the body;
Whereas, in the United States--

    (1) about 16,000 individuals are diagnosed with sarcoma each year;

    (2) approximately 7,200 individuals die from sarcoma each year; and

    (3) about 50,000 individuals struggle with sarcoma at any given time;

Whereas, each year, about 1 percent of cancers diagnosed in adults and around 15 
        percent of cancers diagnosed in children are sarcoma;
Whereas more than 70 types of sarcoma have been identified;
Whereas the potential causes of sarcoma are not well understood;
Whereas treatment for sarcoma can include surgery, radiation therapy, or 
        chemotherapy;
Whereas sarcoma is often misdiagnosed and underreported; and
Whereas July 2023 would be an appropriate month to designate as National Sarcoma 
        Awareness Month--

    (1) to raise awareness about sarcoma; and

    (2) to encourage more individuals in the United States to get properly 
diagnosed and treated: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation of July 2023 as 
``National Sarcoma Awareness Month''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”),as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1,2008 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by andamong NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2008-A, doeshereby certify that:

 

1.            NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale andServicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the IndentureTrustee.

 

3.            This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Saleand Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.            A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’sinitial cutoff date, March 31, 2008, to and including December 31,2008 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has beenmade under my supervision.

 

5.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cutoff date, March 31,2008, to and including December 31, 2008.

 

6.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March 2009.

 

----

 

March 30, 2009

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Bierman |
|--------|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Name:  | Steven C. Bierman     |
|   | Title: | President             |

 

----
Order entered August 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00615-CV

NOAM NIV, Appellant

V.

MEYER & COLEGROVE, PLLC, MILTON W. COLEGROVE, JR. AND 

CONTEMPORARY SOLUTIONS - USA D/B/A TEXAS PIONEER TITLE AGENCY,

Appellees

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-04528-2011

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ August 12, 2015 motion to proceed without court 

reporter’s record and affirm trial court’s judgment. In the motion, appellees correctly note the 

reporter’s record is overdue and appellant has failed to comply with the Court’s June 18, 2015 

directive to file written verification appellant has requested preparation of the reporter’s record 

and either has paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee or is allowed to proceed 

without prepayment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

Because appellant was cautioned that failure to comply with the June 18th directive could 

result in the appeal being submitted without the reporter’s record and appellant has filed no 

response to appellees’ August 12th motion, we GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER 
the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See id. As the clerk’s record has been filed, 

appellant shall file his brief no later than September 23, 2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00599-CV

Nita Winkler

v.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 3 of Bell County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 75,824

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion. Costs of 

the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 27, 2014
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2996612-APR-201211:15 AM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 20, 2018

No. 04-18-00576-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.J.J. JR., A CHILD,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA01036

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating Appellant’s parental rights to 

his child, the reporter’s record was due on September 10, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b). 

On September 17, 2018, court reporter Angelita Rangel Jimenez filed a notification of late 

reporter’s record. She indicated her other duties preclude her from working on the record, and she 

expects to file the record by September 24, 2018. 

The reporter’s motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record is GRANTED. The 

reporter’s record must be filed with this court by September 24, 2018. See id. R. 35.3(c) 

(limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days). 

The child’s “need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present and 

future physical and emotional needs.” See Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 

907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ). This court must render its decision “with the 

least possible delay,” and any further delays in obtaining the reporter’s record will hinder this court 

in its duty. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex. 2005) (quoting TEX. 

FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(a) (West 2014)). Any further requests for extension of time to file 

the reporter’s record will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Form of Subscription Notice



 EXHIBIT 4.1 
  

EXERCISABLE ON OR BEFORE 5:00 P.M., CDT, ON
                    , 2005 (THE “EXPIRATION TIME”) 
  
 Control No.: 
 Holder of Record:

 Number of Shares Available for Purchase: 
  
 FCSTONE GROUP, INC. 
 SUBSCRIPTION
RIGHTS FOR COMMON STOCK 
  
 Dear Stockholder: 
  
 Pursuant to Article IV of the Plan of Conversion of FCStone Group, Inc. (the
“Company”), a copy of which was mailed to you as Appendix A to the Company’s Proxy Statement – Prospectus dated
                    , 2004, the Company hereby offers to you the right to purchase the number of shares of common stock of the Company
available for purchase set forth above at a purchase price of $10.00 per share (the “Subscription Price”). The subscription rights granted hereby are not transferable. This right of subscription may be exercised only by fully completing,
executing and returning to the Company in the enclosed envelope the Notice of Exercise of Subscription Rights provided below, which must be received by the Company prior to the Expiration Time and accompanied by a check or money order for the total
Subscription Price. 
  
 Upon exercise as provided herein and
collection by the Company of the Subscription Price paid by you, shares of common stock of the Company will be issued to you. These shares will be identical to those issued to you pursuant to the Plan of Conversion, except that these shares will not
be subject to redemption for failure to transact business with or through the Company for a period of two consecutive years. The shares issuable upon exercise are described in the Proxy Statement- Prospectus under the heading “Description of
Capital Stock after Restructuring.” If you do not exercise your subscription rights prior to the Expiration Time, they will automatically terminate. The subscription rights must generally be exercised in full, provided that partial
exercises are allowed if your subscription is for at least 1,000 shares of common stock. 
  

			
	 Sincerely,

	 FCSTONE GROUP, INC.

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul G. Anderson

	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer


  
 NOTICE OF
EXERCISE OF SUBSCRIPTION RIGHTS 
  
 To FCStone Group, Inc.: 
  
 Pursuant to Article IV of the Plan of Conversion of the Company, the undersigned hereby
irrevocably exercises its right to purchase the number of shares of common stock of the Company indicated below at a purchase price of $10.00 per share (the “Subscription Price”). Enclosed herewith is check or money order for payment in
full of the Subscription Price. 
  

			
	 Number of Shares Subscribed:
	  	_____________
		
	 Subscription Price Paid:
	  	$
                            

  

			
	 
		
	By:	 	 
	 Date:
	 	 


  
 VOID IF NOT
RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY WITH PAYMENT 
 BEFORE 5:00 P.M. CDT ON
                    , 2005
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Terry Lynn Jones

No. 06

- 23

- 00094

- CV Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice

Rambin participating.

As stat ed in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED DECEMBER 12, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Michael Adam JATSKO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-668

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019

Bryan J. McCarthy, of Law Offices of Germain & McCarthy, Melbourne, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., and BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
----

| Exhibit                32.1                                            |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| **CERTIFICATION                PURSUANT TO**                      |
| **18                U.S.C. SECTION 1350**                         |
| **AS                ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**                         |
| **SECTION                906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**  |

|   | 1.     | The                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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

|                                       |   |   |                                       |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Robert              P. Atwell     |   |   | /s/ George              Jackson       |
| Robert              P. Atwell              |   |   | George                Jackson              |
| Title:Chief              Executive Officer |   |   | Title:Chief              Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6741

DAN OLIVER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

D. BRAXTON, Warden; T. FOWLKES, Ombudsman; H.

CLARK, Operational Officer; RN TWEATY; RN RAY;

DOCTOR WARREN; RN CASPER; KEELING, Assistant

Warden; R. FLEMING, Regional Director; WRIGHT,

of Records,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LIEUTENANT FALZT; OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER

DAVIDSON; SERGEANT MOSLEY; OFFICER PURDY;

LIEUTENANT BARBOUR; LIEUTENANT ROSS; OFFICER

WILSON; SERGEANT BERNARD; SERGEANT WHITE;

OFFICER SUTTON; S. HARRISON, Director, Department of Corrections,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-01-121-AM)

Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001
2

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Dan Oliver appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Oliver v. Braxton, No. CA-01-121-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2001;

entered Apr. 2, 2001). 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
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - (-)other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - new mexico(1)
              - rhode island(1)

## By Year

General        August 2, 2018        370.410.1 - Training - General Provision

General        December 29, 2023        Science Information Service (SIS)

General        July 11, 2019        Giuseppina Mattietti

General        July 11, 2019        Madalyn Blondes

General        July 11, 2019        Sally Sennert

General        May 1, 2019        General Questions To Pose While Exploring Topographic Maps

General        July 11, 2019        Alanna Simpson

General        July 11, 2019        Geoff Gilleaudeau

General        July 11, 2019        Jacob Richardson

General        July 11, 2019        William F. Hoover

General        July 11, 2019        Jess Rodysill

General        January 24, 2023        Don't Take It for Granite

General        August 3, 2018        429.1 - Space Management

Infographics        June 1, 2001        Screenshot of "Biological Soil Crusts — Webs of Life in the Desert" Fact Sheet

General        March 1, 2018        Birdsall-Dreiss Distinguished Lecturer: Clifford I. Voss

General        July 30, 2020        New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory

Infographics        December 31, 2010        Terms to describe the measurement of tsunamis

Infographics        July 24, 2020        Kīlauea summit crater lake growth July 25, 2019 to July 25, 2020
Exhibit 9.2


                                IRREVOCABLE PROXY

      The undersigned stockholder of Alliance Distributors Holding Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby irrevocably makes, constitutes and
appoints Jay Gelman ("Gelman"), from and after December 15, 2005, as the sole
and exclusive attorney and proxy of the undersigned, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, to the full extent of the undersigned's rights
with respect to (i) the voting of all the voting securities (whether in the form
of common stock, preferred stock, or both) of the Company beneficially owned by
the undersigned stockholder (the "Securities"), including, without limitation,
the power to execute and deliver written consents with respect to the
Securities, at every annual, special or adjourned meeting of the Company's
stockholders, and in every written consent in lieu of such a meeting, or
otherwise, for any lawful purpose, and (ii) the taking of actions in furtherance
thereof, such as the right to demand that the Secretary of the Company call a
special meeting of the stockholders of the Company for the purpose of
considering any matter properly called before such meeting. Upon the execution
hereof, all prior proxies given by the undersigned with respect to the
Securities are hereby revoked and no subsequent proxies covering the specific
matters referred to herein will be given.

      The undersigned stockholder hereby acknowledges and confirms that the
appointment of Gelman as the undersigned's proxy shall be deemed to be coupled
with an interest sufficient to make this proxy irrevocable. Any obligation of
the undersigned hereunder shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of
the undersigned.

      Nothing herein shall be deemed a restriction of the right of the
undersigned stockholder or its respective successors or assigns to transfer or
sell any securities of the Company and any securities so transferred or sold
shall be free and clear of this agreement. It shall not be required pursuant to
this agreement that the undersigned or its successors or assigns hold any
securities of the Company.

      Any copy, facsimile telecommunication or other reliable reproduction of
this proxy may be substituted or used in lieu of an original writing or
transmission for all purposes for which an original writing or transmission
could be used.

Dated: As of December 15, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7573

HENRY ROBINSON, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-97-1221-WMN)

Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Robinson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Annabelle Louise Lisic,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Robinson, III, seeks to appeal the district court's

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Waters, No. CA-97-

1221-WMN (D. Md. Oct. 10, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED