alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

134249 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DALE OSBURN, INC., OS BURN INDUSTRIES, Stephen J. Markman, INC., and TRUCKWAY SERVICES, INC. OF Justices MICHIGAN, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 134249 COA: 267927 Wayne CC: 98-836716-CK AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant,

and

GARAN, LUCOW, MILLER & SEWARD, P.C., f/k/a GARAN, LUCOW, SEWARD, COOPER & BECKER, P.C., and T HOMAS L. MISURACA, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1022 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2007

Clerk
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Champps Entertainment, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-106792 and 333-90287 on Forms S-8, and registration statement No. 333-102261 on Form S-3, of Champps Entertainment, Inc. of our report datedSeptember 8, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Champps Entertainment, Inc. as of July 2, 2006 and July 3, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended July 2, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 2, 2006, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of July 2, 2006, which reports appear in the July 2, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Champps Entertainment, Inc. 

KPMG LLP 

 

Denver, Colorado 

September 8, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 2 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 2

 Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies and authorizing the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall 
   of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 
  for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-
                      elect of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2021

Mr. McConnell submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies and authorizing the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall 
   of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 
  for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-
                      elect of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    Effective from January 3, 2021, the joint committee created by 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 (116th Congress), agreed to June 26, 
2020, to make the necessary arrangements for the inauguration of the 
President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States, is 
continued with the same power and authority provided for in that 
resolution.

SEC. 2. USE OF CAPITOL.

    The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol are 
authorized to be used on January 10, 2021, January 17, 2021, and 
January 20, 2021 by the joint committee created by Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 38 (116th Congress), agreed to June 26, 2020, in connection 
with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of 
the President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017269EN.01001001.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Marle Participations SARL v Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

(Case C-320/17)

(2017/C 269/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État (Council of State, France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marle Participations SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

The Court of Justice is asked to rule on the question as to whether — and, if so, under what conditions — the letting of buildings by a holding company to a subsidiary constitutes a direct or indirect involvement in the management of that subsidiary the effect of which being that the acquisition and holding of shares in that subsidiary are considered economic activities within the meaning of the Directive of 28 November 2006 (1) on the common system of value added tax.

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
Case 3:05-cv-01218-H Document 7 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 56
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 7715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01413]

[[Page 7715]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-102196; File Nos. SR-CboeBZX-2024-124; SR-CboeEDGX-
2024-082; SR-CBOE-2024-056; SR-C2-2024-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Cboe EDGX 
Exchange, Inc.; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Cboe Timestamping Service

January 15, 2025.
    On December 13, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, 
Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``Exchanges'') 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule changes to 
adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service 
comprised of two distinct market data reports. The proposed rule 
changes were immediately effective upon filing with the Commission 
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ On January 10, 2025, the 
Exchanges withdrew the proposed rule changes (SR-CboeBZX-2024-124; SR-
CboeEDGX-2024-082; SR-CBOE-2024-056; SR-C2-2024-022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-01413 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
Exhibit
10.1





Description
of Prudential Savings Bank's Fiscal 2008 Directors' Compensation





Compensation to directors for their
service on the Board of Directors is paid by Prudential Savings Bank (the
"Bank"), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Prudential Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania
(the "Company").  The Company does not pay separate compensation to
its directors for their service on the Company's Board of
Directors.  For fiscal 2008, members of the Bank's Board of Directors
will receive an annual retainer of $21,600 per annum, plus an additional fee for
Special Meetings at a rate of $1,800 per meeting.  Members of the
Audit Committee, Executive Committee, Compensation Committee and Budget/Finance
Committee will receive fees of $800 per meeting attended.  As Chairman
of the Board, Mr. Packer will receive an annual retainer of $71,145 in addition
to standard board and committee meeting fees.  Mr. Judge will receive
an additional $5,100 per year for service as chairman of the Bank's Finance
Committee.  As solicitor of the Bank, Mr. Balka will receive an annual
retainer of $46,000.  Mr. Balka also will receive the normal meeting
fees for service on the Executive Committee and the normal annual Board retainer
of $21,600.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN J. VEATCH, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-1075-M

§

BOHAC MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, §

L.P., and LIBERTY BANKERS LIFE §

INSURANCE CO., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed the above-referenced case on May 24, 2005, and it has been more than

120 days since the filing of the Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff has failed to file a valid return

of service on Defendants Bohac Mortgage Holdings, L.P., and Liberty Bankers Life Insurance

Company. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this action is

subject to dismissal without further notice. The Court hereby puts Plaintiff on notice that this

action will be dismissed for failure to file a valid return of service.

Accordingly, by October 18, 2005, Plaintiff shall file a valid return of service as to

Defendants or show good cause in writing why service cannot be made, or this action will be

dismissed without further notice for failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED.

September 30, 2005.

_________________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 3:05-cv-01075-M Document 4 Filed 09/30/2005 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries:

     P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
     Fleming Chinese Restaurants, Inc.
     P.F. Chang's II, Inc.
     P.F. Chang's III, Inc.
     P.F. Chang's IV, Inc.
     PFC Building III Limited Partnership
     PFCCB Texas
     PFCCB Club-Frankford
     PFCCB Loutex
     PFCCB NUCA
     PFCCB Florida
     PFCCB Southeast
     PFCCB East Coast
     PFCCB So Cal
     PFCCB Mid-Atlantic
     PFCCB Northwest
     PFCCB Halpern
     PFCCB Management, Inc.
     P.F. Chang's VI, Inc.
     PFCCB Equipment, LLC
     PFCCB Licensing, Inc.
     PFCCB Administration, Inc.
     Pei Wei Asian Diner, Inc.
     PFCCB So Cal II
     PFCCB Newtex
     Arbors Club, Inc.
     Pei Wei Asian Diner One LLC
     Pei Wei Diner Two LLP
     PFCCB Marlton LLC
Romerio Latee WALKER, DOC #108533, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D18-4275

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2018112EN.01000502.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 3 November 2017 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

(Case C-625/17)

(2018/C 112/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is legislation which imposes a charge on the basis of the balance sheet total of credit institutions contrary to the freedom to provide services under Article 56 et seq. TFEU and/or to the free movement of capital and payments under Article 63 TFEU if, for the purposes of the charge, banking transactions with clients in other Member States are taken into account for a credit institution with its seat in Austria whereas the same does not apply to a credit institution with its seat in Austria which enters into such transactions as the parent company of a group of credit institutions through a credit institution belonging to the group with its seat in another Member State, the balance sheet of which must, since it belongs to a group of companies, be consolidated with that of the credit institution acting as a parent company, because the charge is levied on the basis of the unconsolidated (that is to say, not included in a group financial statement) balance sheet total?

---
# C_2017424EN.01002401.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 October 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie v H.

(Case C-582/17)

(2017/C 424/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Applicant:

Defendant: H.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person ... be interpreted as meaning that only the Member State in which the application for international protection was first lodged can determine the Member State responsible, with the result that a foreign national has a legal remedy only in that Member State, under Article 27 of the Dublin Regulation, against the incorrect application of one of the criteria for determining responsibility set out in Chapter III of that Regulation, including Article 9?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31; ‘the Dublin Regulation’.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statements (No. 333- 28135, No. 333-124894, No. 333-123997, No. 333-123781, No. 333-113182, No. 333-111186, No. 333-57418 and No. 333-132740) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-141277,No. 333-104049, No. 333-104050, No. 333-108733, No. 333-108734, No. 333-124089, No. 333-75484, No. 333-75486, No. 333-94427, No. 333-87625, No. 333-87627, No. 333-62925, and No. 333-62927)on Form S-8 of Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a development stage company) of our report dated March 7, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a development stage company) as of December 31, 2007and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2007 and for the period fromSeptember 29, 1999 (inception) to December 31, 2007, which included an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment”, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of Panacos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Our report on the cumulative consolidated statements of operations, redeemable preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the period September 29, 1999 (inception) toDecember 31, 2007 include amounts for the period from September 29, 1999 (inception) to December 31, 2004, which were audited by other auditors and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the periodSeptember 29, 1999 through December 31, 2004 is based solely on the report of other auditors. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 7, 2008
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00791]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1232 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1049, K2025-1048.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00791 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 64 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security 

relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2022 

Mr. MARSHALL (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground 

of Inadmissibility’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the final rule submitted by the 

4 Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public 

5 Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 55472 

6 (September 9, 2022)), and such rule shall have no force 

7 or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA MICHAEL COGDELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-01521-JFA-2; 3:14-cv-02020-JFA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 16, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Michael Cogdell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Michael Cogdell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

July 29, 2015 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion 

as time-barred and the court’s August 10, 2015 order construing 

his motion to amend as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing

it as unauthorized. These orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 debatable 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 debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85. 

With regard to the July 29 order, we have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Cogdell has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to 
3

that order. As to the August 10 order, we recently granted 

Cogdell’s motion to file a successive § 2255 motion asserting his 

claim based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) 

(declaring residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act 

unconstitutionally vague). See In re Cogdell, No. 16-358 (4th 

Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal 

related to that order as moot. 

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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 23 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.23
                                      Agreed to December 8, 2021        

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Sunday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty one

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered to 
the Nation by Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas, 
his remains be permitted to lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol 
on Thursday, December 9, 2021, and the Architect of the Capitol, under 
the direction of the President pro tempore of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps 
for the accomplishment of that purpose.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```