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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2554 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2554

 To improve the ability of separating or retiring members of the Armed 
 Forces to seek services provided by county veterans service officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2019

Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York (for himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and 
Mr. Gallagher) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the ability of separating or retiring members of the Armed 
 Forces to seek services provided by county veterans service officers.

    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 ``Know Your Vets Act''.

SEC. 2. INFORMATION REGARDING COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS.

    (a) Provision of Information.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
ensure that a member of the Armed Forces who is separating or retiring 
from the Armed Forces may elect to have the Department of Defense form 
DD-214 of the member transmitted to the appropriate county veterans 
service officer based on the mailing address provided by the member.
    (b) Database.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall maintain a database of all county 
veterans service officers.
    (c) County Veterans Service Officer Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``county veterans service officer'' means an employee of a county 
government, local government, or Tribal government who is covered by 
section 14.629(a)(2) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations.
                                 <all>
```
153 So. 289

#### Ex parte LACKEY. LACKEY v. THOMAS.

8 Div. 564.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 25, 1934.

Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for petitioner.

H. G. Bailey, of Boaz, for defendant.

No brief reached Reporter.

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

Ordinarily this court will not disturb the finding of the Court of Appeals as to error without injury unless it is manifest from the opinion of said court that the application of said rule was erroneous. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; McNeil v. Munson S. S. Lines, 184 Ala. 420, 63 So. 992; Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Montgomery, 206 Ala. 394, 90 So. 340.

The Court of Appeals has held, and properly so, that the defendant’s plea of a *107failure of consideration was subject to the plaintiff’s demurrer which should have been sustained, but applied the doctrine of error without injury because the trial judge, sitting as a jury, could have found for defendant under the plea of payment, and as to which there was a dispute in the evidence. This could not be so unless the opinion or record shows that the finding of the trial court was based on the plea of payment, or that the plea was established by the undisputed evidence, or that there was no evidence in support of the plea to which the demurrer was overruled. The opinion of the Gourt of Appeals does not suggest that the judgment of the trial court was based only upon the plea of payment, and, in effect, sets out that there was a conflict in the evidence as to both of said pleas, and this being true there was no ground for the application of the rule, of error without injury. From aught appearing, it is impossible to say that the trial court based its finding on the plea of payment alone, and that the plaintiff has not shown probable injury.

The writ is awarded, and the holding of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to said court.

Reversed and remanded.

All Justices concur.
# C_2018152EN.01001901.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 16 February 2018 — A-PACK CZ, s r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství

(Case C-127/18)

(2018/C 152/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant (applicant at first instance): A-PACK CZ, s.r.o.

Appellant (applicant at first instance):

Other party (defendant at first instance): Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Other party (defendant at first instance):

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Article 90(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted, having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality and the principle of proportionality, in such a way that it allows Member States by way of derogation to lay down conditions which for certain cases exclude a reduction of the taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment of the price? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Article 90(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted, having regard to the principle of fiscal neutrality and the principle of proportionality, in such a way that it allows Member States by way of derogation to lay down conditions which for certain cases exclude a reduction of the taxable amount in the event of total or partial non-payment of the price?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is national legislation contrary to the purpose of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if it does not allow payers of value added tax to make a correction to the amount of tax where tax became chargeable on a taxable supply to another taxpayer who paid for it only in part or not at all, and who subsequently ceased to be a value added tax payer? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is national legislation contrary to the purpose of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if it does not allow payers of value added tax to make a correction to the amount of tax where tax became chargeable on a taxable supply to another taxpayer who paid for it only in part or not at all, and who subsequently ceased to be a value added tax payer?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P.



|                                                       |  |                             
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|Name                                                   |  | Jurisdiction of Organization
|Penn Virginia Resource Finance Corporation             |  | Delaware                    
|Penn Virginia Operating Co., LLC                       |  | Delaware                    
|Fieldcrest Resources LLC                               |  | Delaware                    
|K Rail LLC                                             |  | Delaware                    
|Loadout LLC                                            |  | Delaware                    
|Toney Fork LLC                                         |  | Delaware                    
|Suncrest Resources LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|Coal Handling Solutions LLC                            |  | Delaware                    
|Kingsport Handling LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|Maysville Handling LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|Covington Handling LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Midstream LLC                                      |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Gas Resources, LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|Connect Energy Services, LLC                           |  | Delaware                    
|Connect Gas Pipeline LLC                               |  | Delaware                    
|PVR North Texas Gas Gathering, LLC                     |  | Delaware                    
|Dulcet Acquisition LLC                                 |  | Delaware                    
|Thunder Creek Gas Services, L.L.C. (25% Joint Venture) |  | Wyoming                     
|PVR Cherokee Gas Processing LLC                        |  | Oklahoma                    
|PVR East Texas Gas Processing, LLC                     |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Finco LLC                                          |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Gas Processing LLC                                 |  | Oklahoma                    
|PVR Hamlin, LLC                                        |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Natural Gas Gathering LLC                          |  | Oklahoma                    
|PVR Oklahoma Natural Gas Gathering LLC                 |  | Oklahoma                    
|PVR Radnor, LLC                                        |  | Delaware                    
|PVR Marcellus Gas Gathering, LLC                       |  | Delaware                    
|LJL, LLC                                               |  | West Virginia
#### Byung W. Lim, Appellant, v Choices, Inc., Respondent.

[875 NYS2d 192]-

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid rent, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated February 7, *7402008, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In support of that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint, the defendant established that the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement through the submission of an affidavit of its president, an agreement memorializing the parties’ agreement to settle and discontinue the instant action signed by both parties, and a copy of the bank check referenced in the agreement representing full settlement and satisfaction of all claims asserted in the action *(see*CPLR 2104). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit in which he did not deny either signing the agreement or accepting and cashing the bank check. Thus, there was no dispute that the parties entered into a valid “out-of-court settlement [that was] adequately described in a signed writing” *(Bonnette v Long Is. Coll. Hosp.,*3 NY3d 281, 286 [2004]). Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, notwithstanding the absence of the filing of a voluntary discontinuance under CPLR 3217, the documentary evidence proffered in support of the motion clearly evidenced the plaintiffs intent to release the defendant from the action *(see Gale v Citicorp,*278 AD2d 197 [2000]; *see also Spence v Jones,*51 AD3d 771, 772 [2008]; *Hanna v Ford Motor Co.,*252 AD2d 478 [1998]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Miller, JJ., concur.
### NUMBER 13 - 1 8 - 00 684 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF R . D. P. AND G. P. , MINOR CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 3 6 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes Appellant, Roman Saldivar Pena , filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the
3 6 th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas, in cause number S

- 18

- 5494FL

- B

. This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby2

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will ta x costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith

. GREGORY T. PERKES Justice D elivered and filed the 7th day of March , 20 1 9

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00381

- CR

Jose Andres ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7790

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED October 19, 2022.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice
Officers' Certificate



 Exhibit 10.3 

NORDSTROM, INC. 

Officers’ Certificate Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Indenture 

May 26, 2009 

Reference is made to the indenture, dated as of December 3, 2007 (the “Indenture”) between Nordstrom, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the “Company”), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”), in connection with the issuance of $400 million aggregate principal amount of the Company’s 6.75% Notes due 2014 (the
“Notes”). Each capitalized term used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Indenture. 

Each of Michael G. Koppel and Robert B. Sari certifies that he is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and the
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, respectively, of the Company, and that, as such, he is authorized to execute this certificate on behalf of the Company pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Indenture and DOES HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY
on behalf of the Company, and not in his individual capacity, that: 
  

	 	1.	I have read all the conditions and covenants set forth in the Indenture for the authentication and delivery of the Notes in respect of compliance with which this
certificate is given; 

  

	 	2.	In my opinion, the Company has complied with the conditions and covenants provided for in the Indenture relating to the execution and delivery of the Notes;


  

	 	3.	I have made such examination or investigation as is necessary to enable me to express an informed opinion as to whether the Company has complied with the conditions and
covenants provided for in the Indenture relating to the issuance, authentication and delivery of the Notes; and 

  

	 	4.	The statements made in this certificate are based upon my examination of the Notes to be issued under the Indenture, upon my examination of and familiarity with those
sections and relevant definitions of the Indenture setting forth the conditions and covenants relating to the execution and delivery of the Notes thereunder, upon my general knowledge of and familiarity with the operations of the Company and upon
the performance of my duties as an officer of the Company. 

 [Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Certificate as of the date first above written.

  

							
	NORDSTROM, INC.	 	
			
	By:	 	
 



	 	
		 	Name:	 	Michael G. Koppel	 	
		 	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer
	 	
			
	By:	 	
 



	 	
		 	Name:	 	Robert B. Sari	 	
		 	Title:	 	Executive Vice President,	 	
		 		 	General Counsel and Secretary	 	


 Nordstrom, Inc. - Officer’s Certificate pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Indenture
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1101

Natural Gas Fixed Swap - PG&E Citygate - Platts Gas Daily

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the average price published by Platts Gas Daily for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily PG&E Citygate published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract 

month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each contract shall be valued 

as the contract quantity in MMBtus multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13110

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cr-00012-LGW-BWC-18

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 versus

TYRONE MIDDLETON, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 8, 2021)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-13110 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2

Junita M. Holsey, appointed counsel for Tyrone Middleton, in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Middleton has moved for appointment of new counsel or for leave to proceed 

pro se. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, Middleton’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED, and Middleton’s motion for appointment of counsel or for leave to 

proceed pro se is DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 20-13110 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 Page: 2 of 2
exv10w17






Exhibit 10.17




CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2011

EXECUTIVE OFFICER BASE SALARIES



The Company’s executive officers are scheduled to receive the following annual base salaries for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 in their current positions:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name and Current Position	 	Base Salary
	David L. Martin
	 	$	425,000	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	Laurence L. Betterley
	 	$	278,000	 
	Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 
	James E. Flaherty
	 	$	260,000	 
	Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary
	 	 	 	 
	Robert J. Thatcher
	 	$	275,000	 
	Executive Vice President
	 	 	 	 
	Paul Koehn
	 	$	250,000	 
	Vice President of Manufacturing
	 	 	 	 
	Brian Doughty
	 	$	250,000	 
	Vice President of Commercial Operations
	 	 	 	 
	Paul Tyska
	 	$	225,000	 
	Vice President of Business Development
	 	 	 	 
	Scott Kraus
	 	$	225,000	 
	Vice President of Sales
Van MarketA

MarketAxess SEF Corporation
299 Park Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10171

October 13, 2014
Submitted Via Email

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20581
secretary@cftc.gov

RE: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments Pursuant to CFTC Regulation 40.6(d)

To Whom it May Concern:

Pursuant to Regulation 40.6(d) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”
or “CFTC”), MarketAxess SEF Corporation (““MKTX SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission of
the following rule amendments made effective during the week of October 6, 2014.

On September 30, 2013, MKTX SEF listed products for trading by certification pursuant to
CFTC Regulation 40.2. Pursuant to that certification, MKTX SEF lists for trading the indexes
listed in Appendix A hereto. A new series for each index listed in Appendix A hereto was
published on the date listed next to the name of the relevant index. MKTX SEF has updated its
product listing to include each new index.

If you have any questions regarding this notification, please contact me at (212) 813-6280.

>
A 6 GE
Ron Steinfeld

Chief Compliance Officer
MarketAxess SEF Corporation

1323497.01-WASSROLA - MSW


Appendix A

Legal Name Roll Date
CDX.EM 10/6/2014
CDX.EM.ex-EU 10/6/2014
CDX.LATAM.CORP 10/6/2014
CDX.NA.HY 10/9/2014
CDX.NA.IG 10/6/2014
CDX.NA.IG.HVOL 10/6/2014
iTraxx Asia ex-Japan 10/6/2014
iTraxx Asia ex-Japan IG 10/6/2014
iTraxx Australia 10/6/2014
iTraxx CEEMEA 10/6/2014
iTraxx Europe 10/6/2014
iTraxx Europe Crossover 10/6/2014
iTraxx Europe Senior Financials 10/6/2014
iTraxx Europe Sub Financials 10/6/2014
iTraxx Japan 10/6/2014
iTraxx SovX CEEMEA ex-EU 10/6/2014
2

1323497.01-WASSROIA - MSW
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.                   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                                                                                                                                                 |
| August      21, 2009 |                                                                                                                                                                 | /s/David      S. Rector,David      S. Rector, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal      executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer  |

----