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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 544 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 544

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the ``Santiago E. Campos 
United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Santiago E. 
Campos United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 544

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELVIN BLUITT, a.k.a. Melvin Lee

Bluitt,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

TERRI GONZALEZ,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-56483

D.C. No. CV-05-00131-CAS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 21, 2011** 

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Melvin Bluitt appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

NOV 28 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 06-56483

Bluitt contends that the Governor’s 2003 decision reversing the Board of

Prison Terms’s decision finding him suitable for parole is not supported by some

evidence. The record reflects that Bluitt received all process that was due. See

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam).

We construe Bluitt’s additional argument as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 

22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam).

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dorsey Irvin HADDEN.

No. 102P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Dorsy I. Hadden.

*142Sonya M. Calloway, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of February 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
STATE v. BETHEA

No. COA05-866

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Scotland (03CRS54666, 03CRS54667, 04CRS1211).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



Allin Corporation wholly owns the following subsidiaries:



|                                       |  |                       |  |                                                        
|-------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | State ofIncorporation |  | Additional Names underwhich SubsidiaryConducts Business
|Allin Consulting of Pennsylvania, Inc. |  | Pennsylvania          |  | Allin Consulting                                       
|Allin Corporation of California        |  | California            |  | Allin Consulting                                       
|Allin Interactive Corporation          |  | Delaware              |  | Allin Interactive                                      
|Allin Network Products, Inc.           |  | California            |  |                                                        
|Allin Holdings Corporation             |  | Delaware              |  |                                                        



Except as noted above,
each subsidiary does business exclusively under its corporate name, with or without the corporate indicator.
# Commission Decision of 19 December 2013 amending Decision 2007/506/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria            for the award of the EU Ecolabel to soaps, shampoos and hair conditioners (notified under document C(2013) 9223) (Text with            EEA relevance) (2013/793/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Decision

# of 19 December 2013

# amending Decision 2007/506/EC in order to prolong the validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel                        to soaps, shampoos and hair conditioners                     

# (notified under document C(2013) 9223)

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2013/793/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by 2014/893/EU: Commission Decision of 9 December 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel                                 for rinse-off cosmetic products (notified under document C(2014) 9302) Text with EEA relevance.
Exhibit 32.1

10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 Quarterly Report of iShares®
COMEX® Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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 condition and results of operations of the Trust
at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009           
|                             
|/s/    Lee T. Kranefuss      
|Lee T. Kranefuss *           
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)





|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOEBE v. WORLEY.

No. 401P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Robbie W. Worley, Pro Se.

Janet L. Shires, General Counsel, for NC Property Tax Commission.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of August 2006 by Petitioner for "Petition for Judicial Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
|                                      |  |             
|------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 |  | EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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 condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|      |  |                         
|----- |  | ------------------------
|      |  | /s/    RICHARD L. PETEKA
|Name: |  | Richard L. Peteka       
|Date: |  | August 6, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. James Charles GIBSON.

No. 34P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for James Charles Gibson.

Lisa Bradley Dawson, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of January 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of April 2006."
IN RE Da.A.

No. COA06-273

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Forsyth (03J125, 03J144).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-25-1996
<CASH>                                       8,366,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,917,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   145,000
<INVENTORY>                                 11,380,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,963,000
<PP&E>                                      44,989,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,369,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,600,000
<BONDS>                                      3,136,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,659,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,369,000
<SALES>                                     18,950,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,950,000
<CGS>                                       11,506,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,506,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,422,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,051,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   759,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,292,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,292,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-13-240

PENNY STROTHER APPELLANT V. LACROIX OPTICAL, MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND DEATH & PERMANENT TOTAL DISABILITY TRUST FUND APPELLEES Opinion Delivered October 2, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, [No. F406963]

SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE ADDENDUM ORDERED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant appeals from the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (Commission) reversal of the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that appellant was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the Commission’s reversal was unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act is unconstitutional in violation of her right to substantive and procedural due process. Because appellant has submitted a brief without a proper addendum in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i), 1 we order appellant to submit a supplemental addendum.

1 (2012).Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) requires the addendum to include all items that are essential for

the appellate court to understand the case and to decide the issues on appeal, including exhibits such as CDs and DVDs. In its opinion and order reversing the ALJ’s findings as to whether appellant was permanently and totally disabled, the Commission relies, in part, on surveillance video of appellant that “showed no apparent difficulties involving claimant’s upper extremities or any other part of her body.” This video, though in the record, is not in the addendum. Accordingly, we order appellant to file a supplemental addendum to provide the video exhibit to the members of the court within seven calendar days from the date of this opinion. 2 We strongly encourage appellate counsel, prior to filing the supplemental addendum, to review our rules, as well as the record and addenda, to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. Supplementation of the addendum ordered. H ARRISON and W YNNE , JJ., agree. Frederick S. “Rick” Spencer, for appellant. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP , by: Guy Alton Wade and Travis J. Fowler , for appellee.

2 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4). 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7538** 

CHRISTOPHER BULLARD; TONY GINOR SAMPSON , Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,
v. REUBEN FRANKLIN YOUNG , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:12

- ct

- 03093

- FL )

Submitted : February 21, 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Bullard, Tony Ginor Sampson, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error . Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bullard v. Young , No. 5:12

- ct

- 03093

- FL (E.D. N.C. Aug. 22, 2012)
. W e deny Appellant s’ motion to compel an answer and for grant of motions filed in the district court
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

June 11 , 2018

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 20 15

- 1555

AGILITY LOGISTICS SE RVICES COMPANY KSC, Appellant

v.

JAMES N. MATTIS, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,

MARK T. ESPER

, SECRETARY OF THE ARM Y, Appellees

De cided: April 16, 2018

P recedential Opinion

______________________

In the caption, please change the name of the Acting Secretary of the Army to Mark T. Esper, Secr e tary of the Army , as listed above

.
WWW.EXFILE.COM, INC. -- 13745 -- MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. -- EXHIBIT 10.2 TO FORM 10-Q


    EXHIBIT
      10.2

      AMENDMENT
        TO STRATEGIC AGREEMENT

       

      WHEREAS,
        GENERAL DYNAMICS C4 SYSTEMS, INC
        (formerly General Dynamics Government Systems Corporation) (hereinafter referred
        to as “GDC4S”)
        and
MEDIS
        TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
        (hereinafter referred to as “MEDIS”)
        entered
        into a Strategic Agreement (the “SA”)
        dated
        April 5, 2001 under which GDC4S will market direct liquid fuel cells
        designed by MEDIS and MORE Energy LTD (a majority owned subsidiary of MEDIS)
        (“GDC4S” and “MEDIS” shall at times be referred to individually as “Party” and
        collectively as the “Parties”) on a exclusive basis to the United States
        Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security; and

       

      WHEREAS,
        the
        parties wish to extend the term of the SA.

       

      NOW
        THEREFORE,
        the
        Parties agreed as follows:

       

      	1.  
                	
              The
                duration and effectivity (the “TERM”) of the SA as set forth in provision
                4.1.3 thereof and previously modified by an amendment to the SA is
                modified and changed from December 31, 2006 to December 31,
                2008. All other provisions of the SA are unchanged and remain in
                full
                force and effect.

            


      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF,
        the
        Parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed on this 30th
        day of
        May 2005.

       

      
 

      
        	MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD 	GENERAL DYNAMICS C4 SYSTEMS,
                INC. 
	 	 
	 	 
	By: /s/ Robert
                Lifton
                
                

                  	By: /s/ Michael J.
                Harris
                
                

              
	
                Name: Robert
                  Lifton 

              	Name: Michael
                J. Harris 
	Title: Chairman
                & CEO 	Title: Sr.
                Manager of Contracts
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1115/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1115/2013 of 7 November 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1115/2013                     

# of 7 November 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00504-CV

In re Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial court’s 

contempt order issued in the underlying proceeding. This Court thereafter received a copy of the 

trial court’s amended further orders, which withdrew and superseded the contempt order at issue. 

See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex.2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A 

case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal 

proceedings.”); see also In re Estate of Hastings, No. 07-16-00053-CV, 2017 WL 1151936, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 23, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“[A]n amended order 

generally supersedes and nullifies the order it amends.”).

 Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. We also lift 

our stay of the withdrawn and superseded contempt order.

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Filed: November 16, 2021
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael SELLERS and Kisha Wynn.

No. 438P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

J. Clark Fischer, Winston-Salem, for Wynn.

J. Allen Jernigen, Marc D. Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of August 2006 by Defendant (Kisha Wynn) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. JOHNSON.

No. COA05-1198.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from New Hanover (03CRS64674, 03CRS64687).

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Ryan Gabriel GARCELL.

No. 465A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 5, 2006.

Ann Marie Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Garcell.

*573Charlie C. Walker, Asheville, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of September 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Produce Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 2nd day of October 2006 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of September 2006."