alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[925 NE2d 581, 898 NYS2d 543]

#### Cecilia Teodorescu, Appellant, v Resnick & Binder, P.C., Respondent.

Argued February 11, 2010;

decided March 25, 2010

*777APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lawrence B. Lame,*Jamaica, and *Jonah Grossman*for appellant.

*Kelleher & Maragno, LLP,*Albany *(John J. Kelleher*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order reversed, with costs, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment denied. We hold, contrary to the Appellate Division, that plaintiff raised issues of fact regarding whether she could have prevailed on a theory of constructive notice.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
# Exhibit 99.3

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Brian D. [mailto:BullardB@SEC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:57 PM
To: Lybecker, Martin
Cc: Miller, Barry D.; Scheidt, Douglas J.
Subject: National Presto Industries, Inc.

Dear Mr. Lybecker,

As
we discussed on a preliminary basis last week on February 7 and 9, 2006 (and
without working out any of the details), the staff would not object if, for the
period ending December 31, 2005, National Presto Industries, Inc., continued to
file financial statements that are consistent with financial reporting
requirements for operating companies on Forms 10-K provided those financial
statements also include an additional footnote with pro forma financial
statement information consistent with investment company financial reporting
requirements pursuant to Article 6 of Regulation S-X and Form N-CSR. We would
not consider this an acceptable solution if the information required in the pro
forma footnote were the subject of a confidential treatment request. Although
we fully understand the Companys concern regarding the expectations of
investors and the market place to receive financial reports consistent with
operating companies, we cannot discount the fact that the Company is the
subject of a court order mandating it register with the Commission as an
investment company. Furthermore, because registration as an investment company
carries certain financial reporting obligations that differ significantly from
operating companies under the federal securities laws, we feel obligated at
this time to ensure such financial reporting obligations are met. We have
tentatively offered this solution as a reasonable means to achieve both the
Companys and our objectives.

We
understand that the Company has initially rejected this approach citing timing
and cost, among other concerns. As we mentioned, we do not believe that the
Companys situation warrants an extension of time. We have in similar cases as
the Companys, however, advised registrants to file all available information
at the filing deadline, whether audited or unaudited, as an intermediate step
to filing fully compliant financial statements at a date subsequent to filing
deadline. In those circumstances, we believe the provision of unaudited or
incomplete financial information is preferable to providing no financial
information by the filing deadline, but under no circumstance, do we consider
the registrant to have met its obligations under the federal securities laws.
We hope to continue our dialogue and reach a reasonable solution that meets our
regulatory goals while permitting the Company to achieve its goals.

Please
feel free to contact Doug Scheidt, Barry Miller, or myself to discuss this
matter further.

| |                  
| | -----------------
| | Very truly yours,
| |                  
| | Brian D. Bullard 
| | Chief Accountant 

---
IIB 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2427 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2020 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To amend the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act of 1998 to 

reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 

Watertrails Network. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2427 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Gate3 ways and Watertrails Network Reauthorization Act of 

4 2019’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY GATE6 WAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK. 

7 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

8 of 1998 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 105–312) 

9 is amended by striking ‘‘2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 

2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
151 So. 922

#### STATE of Alabama et al. v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS R. CO.

3 Div. 71.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 21, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellants.
Exhibit 99.4  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of EnCana
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John D. Watson, Executive Vice-President & Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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:  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.   By:
  /s/ John D. WatsonJohn D. WatsonExecutive Vice-President & Chief Financial
  Officer  February 17,
2006
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TalecrisBiotherapeutics Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | Dated: July 29, 2010            |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   | /s/ Lawrence D. Stern                |
|   | Lawrence D. Stern                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Pamela S. Schutz, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting: 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 5, 2004
# C_2018152EN.01001501.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 12 February 2018 — Nalini Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-94/18)

(2018/C 152/17)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nalini Chenchooliah

Applicant:

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Where the spouse of an EU citizen who has exercised free movement rights under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) has been refused a right of residence under Article 7 on the basis that the EU citizen in question was not, or was no longer, exercising EU Treaty Rights in the host Member State concerned, and where it is proposed that the spouse should be expelled from that Member State, must that expulsion be pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Directive, or does it fall within the competence of the national law of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where the spouse of an EU citizen who has exercised free movement rights under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) has been refused a right of residence under Article 7 on the basis that the EU citizen in question was not, or was no longer, exercising EU Treaty Rights in the host Member State concerned, and where it is proposed that the spouse should be expelled from that Member State, must that expulsion be pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of the Directive, or does it fall within the competence of the national law of the Member State?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the above question is that the expulsion must be made pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, must the expulsion be made pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VI of the Directive, and particularly Articles 27 and 28 thereof, or may the Member State, in such circumstances, rely on other provisions of the Directive, in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the above question is that the expulsion must be made pursuant to the provisions of the Directive, must the expulsion be made pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Chapter VI of the Directive, and particularly Articles 27 and 28 thereof, or may the Member State, in such circumstances, rely on other provisions of the Directive, in particular Articles 14 and 15 thereof?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77).

1

---
# C_2018152EN.01000601.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 26 January 2018 — Carlos Escribano Vindel v Ministerio de Justicia

(Case C-49/18)

(2018/C 152/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carlos Escribano Vindel

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerio de Justicia

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the general principle of EU law prohibiting all discrimination be interpreted as not precluding a national rule enshrined in Article 31(One) of Law 39/2010 of 22 December 2010 on the National Budget for 2011, which established different percentage reductions that were more burdensome on the section of the judiciary which earned the least, thus requiring a greater sacrifice from that section in order to preserve public expenditure? (non-discrimination principle) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the general principle of EU law prohibiting all discrimination be interpreted as not precluding a national rule enshrined in Article 31(One) of Law 39/2010 of 22 December 2010 on the National Budget for 2011, which established different percentage reductions that were more burdensome on the section of the judiciary which earned the least, thus requiring a greater sacrifice from that section in order to preserve public expenditure? (non-discrimination principle)

| 2. | Must the general principle of EU law of preserving judicial independence through fair and stable remuneration commensurate with the duties performed by the members of the judiciary be interpreted as precluding a national rule such as that in Article 31(One) of Law 39/2010 of 22 December 2010 on the National Budget, which does not have regard to the nature of their duties, their length of service or the importance of their tasks, and which requires a greater sacrifice in order to preserve public expenditure solely from those members of the judiciary who earn the least? (principle of judicial independence) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the general principle of EU law of preserving judicial independence through fair and stable remuneration commensurate with the duties performed by the members of the judiciary be interpreted as precluding a national rule such as that in Article 31(One) of Law 39/2010 of 22 December 2010 on the National Budget, which does not have regard to the nature of their duties, their length of service or the importance of their tasks, and which requires a greater sacrifice in order to preserve public expenditure solely from those members of the judiciary who earn the least? (principle of judicial independence)

---
[927 NE2d 553, 901 NYS2d 133]

#### Life Receivables Trust, Plaintiff, v Goshawk Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s, Respondent, and Life Settlement Corporation, Doing Business as Peach Tree Life Settlements, Appellant.

Decided May 4, 2010

*851APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Greenberg Traurig LLP,*Albany *(Israel Rubin*of counsel), for appellant.

*Barger & Wolen LLP,*New York City *(Evan L. Smoak*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. The certified question should not be answered as unnecessary.

The Appellate Division properly concluded that the scope and validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement, including issues of arbitrability, are for the arbitration tribunal to determine *(see Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow,*91 NY2d 39, 45-47 [1997]; *Contec Corp. v Remote Solution, Co., Ltd.,*398 F3d 205, 211 [2d Cir 2005]). Although *Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v Mattel, Inc.*(552 US 576 [2008]) prohibits parties from expanding, by their own agreement, the scope of judicial review beyond that authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act, clear and unmistakable evidence exists in this case that the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, including whether the *852parties’ arbitration agreement is invalid under *Hall Street Associates*or whether the apparently offending provision could be severed from the remainder of the agreement.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
Exhibit 23

MCNAIR, MCLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

389 Mulberry Street·Post Office Box·One Macon, GA 31202

Telephone (478) 746-6277·Facsimile (478) 743-6858

www.mmmcpa.com

RALPH S. McLEMORE, SR., CPA (1902-1981)

SIDNEY B. McNAIR, CPA (1913-1992)



|                                |  |  |  |                              
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|SIDNEY E. MIDDLEBROOKS, CPA, PC |  |  |  | RICHARD A. WHITTEN, JR., CPA 
|RAY C. PEARSON, CPA             |  |  |  | ELIZABETH WARE HARDIN, CPA   
|J. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, CPA        |  |  |  | CAROLINE E. GRIFFIN, CPA     
|WILLIAM H. EPPS, JR., CPA       |  |  |  | RONNIE K. GILBERT, CPA       
|RAYMOND A. PIPPIN, JR., CPA     |  |  |  | RON C. DOUTHIT, CPA          
|JERRY A. WOLFE, CPA             |  |  |  | CHARLES A. FLETCHER, CPA     
|W. E. BARFIELD, JR., CPA        |  |  |  | MARJORIE HUCKABEE CARTER, CPA
|HOWARD S. HOLLEMAN, CPA         |  |  |  | BRYAN A. ISGETT, CPA         
|F. GAY McMICHAEL, CPA           |  |  |  | DAVID PASCHAL MUSE, JR., CPA 

March 15, 2007

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated March
15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary included in this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating
to the Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. 2001 Incentive Stock Option Plan (File #333-92440), as filed with the SEC on July 16, 2002.



LOGOMcNAIR, McLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2151 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2151

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 7722 South Main Street in Pine Plains, New York, as the ``Senior Chief 
              Petty Officer Shannon M. Kent Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER SHANNON M. KENT POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7722 South Main Street in Pine Plains, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon M. 
Kent Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Senior 
Chief Petty Officer Shannon M. Kent Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Appeal Reinstated, Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion

filed May 22 , 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00168- CR

CRAIG A. ROBINSON, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1554113

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Craig A. Robinson has signed and filed a written request to withdraw his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request. Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby. Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
# C_2021289EN.01000301.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament

(Case C-650/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 7(1) TEU - European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded - Articles 263 and 269 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the appeal - Challengeable act - Article 354 TFEU - Rules for counting votes in the Parliament - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Rule 178(3) - Concept of ‘votes cast’ - Abstentions - Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)

(2021/C 289/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented: initially by M.Z. Fehér, G. Tornyai and Zs. Wagner, and subsequently by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2213 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the work opportunity 

credit permanent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2019 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. REED, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. 

RICE of South Carolina, and Mr. SUOZZI) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

the work opportunity credit permanent. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT MADE PERMA4 NENT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(c) of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (4) 

7 and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (4). 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2213 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for 

3 the employer after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS