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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5729 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide comprehensive health care to children of Vietnam 

veterans born with Spina Bifida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2008 

Mr. ELLSWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide comprehensive 

health care to children of Vietnam veterans born with 

Spina Bifida, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spina Bifida Health 

5 Care Program Expansion Act’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 5729 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE BY 

2 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CHIL3 DREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS BORN WITH 

4 SPINA BIFIDA. 

5 (a) PROVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH

6 CARE.—Section 1803(a) of title 38, United States Code, 

7 is amended by striking ‘‘such health care as the Secretary 

8 determines is needed by the child for the spina bifida or 

9 any disability that is associated with such condition’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘health care under this section’’. 

11 (b) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE DOMICILIARY CARE.— 

12 Section 1803(c)(1)(A) of title 38, United States Code, is 

13 amended by inserting ‘‘domiciliary care,’’ after ‘‘nursing 

14 home care,’’. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with respect to care 

17 furnished after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
STATE v. HOLDER.

No. COA06-1103.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Johnston (02CRS6247, 02CRS54284).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1119/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1119/2013 of 6 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Melva de Andalucía            (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1119/2013                     

# of 6 November 2013

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Melva de Andalucía (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain's                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Melva de Andalucía’                              registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 289/2009(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              to the specification should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 6 November 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.7.****Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Melva de Andalucía (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 94, 8.4.2009, p. 15.                           

3

OJ C 60, 1.3.2013, p. 15.
# L_2013280EN.01003201.xml

| 22.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 280/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 280/32

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2013/250/EU of 21 May 2013 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for sanitary tapware

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 145 of 31 May 2013
  )

On page 7, in Article 5:

for:

‘For administrative purposes, the code number assigned to the product group “sanitary tapware” shall be “x”.’,

read:

‘For administrative purposes, the code number assigned to the product group “sanitary tapware” shall be “40”.’.

---
PEREZ v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, et al.

No. 661PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Joy H. Brewer, Cary, Kimberly A. D'Arruda, for American Airlines, et al.

Samuel A. Scudder, Raleigh, for Lori Perez.

Joe A. Austin, Jr., Jennifer T. Gottsegen, Raleigh, for NC Asso. Defense Attorneys.

Bruce A. Hamilton, Julia S. Hooten, Raleigh, for NCBBI.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st day of August 2006 by Plaintiff for Court to Reconsider Order of Amicus Curiae:

*810"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. FELTS.

No. COA06-843.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Buncombe (03CRS57355, 03CRS61831, 05CRS55966).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-35366, 333-51176, 333-108646, 333-110201 and 333-116146), on Form S-4 (No. 333-109881) and on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-28277, 333-46691, 333-77961, 333-90091, 333-31026, 333-36374, 333-48844, 333-55092, 333-98779, 333-101704, 333-111138, 333-111141 and
333-111681) of our report dated October 13, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Intellisync Corporation,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California October 13, 2004

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Aaron Jonwan BREWTON.

No. 589P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

John Keating Wiles, Raleigh, for Aaron Jonwan Brewton.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of July 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*813"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of July 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Buncombe County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 5th day of October 2006."

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
STATE of North Carolina, George Kenworth v. Corey McNEILL.

No. 376P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 30, 2006.

Corey Lee McNeill, Pro Se.

Martin T. McCracken, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 29th day of August 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Harnett County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of August 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,676                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,505                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       514                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,091                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,163                       0
<PP&E>                                          19,938                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,330                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,395                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,549                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        19,917                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (459)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,395                       0
<SALES>                                         17,287                  10,772
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,287                  10,772
<CGS>                                           10,814                   6,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,647                   8,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  87                     312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,553                   1,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,017                     580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,536                     861
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,536                     861
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30                    0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30                    0.34
        

</TABLE>
NELSON v. NELSON.

No. 508A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 13, 2006.

Adrienne E. Allison, Richard B. Hager, Sanford, for Carrie Nelson.

Jonathan Silverman, Sanford, for Estate of Melvin Nelson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of October 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Carrie Nelson) shall have up to and including the 16th day of November 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of October 2006."
exv10w07



 




EXHIBIT 10.07



Participation
in the Series C

Out-Performance Program



     Set forth below is information relating to the participation
in the Series C Out-Performance Program by certain officers of United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc., including
information relating to their membership interests in UDR Out-Performance III, LLC.



UDR OUT-PERFORMANCE III, LLC




MEMBERS, CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Capital	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Capital	 	 	Contributions1	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Contributions	 	 	(Other	 	 	Membership	 	 	Percentage	 
	Members	 	(Cash)	 	 	Consideration)	 	 	Units	 	 	Interests	 
	 
	Thomas W. Toomey
	 	$	100,000	 	 	$	125,000	 	 	 	225,000	 	 	 	30	%
	W. Mark Wallis
	 	 	 	 	 	$	75,000	 	 	 	75,000	 	 	 	10	%
	Christopher D. Genry
	 	 	 	 	 	$	45,000	 	 	 	45,000	 	 	 	6	%
	Martha R. Carlin
	 	 	 	 	 	$	45,000	 	 	 	45,000	 	 	 	6	%
	Richard A. Giannotti
	 	 	 	 	 	$	75,000	 	 	 	75,000	 	 	 	10	%
	Michael J. Kelly
	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%
	Mark E. Wood
	 	 	 	 	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%
	Matthew T. Akin
	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%
	Thomas A. Spangler
	 	 	 	 	 	$	60,000	 	 	 	60,000	 	 	 	8	%
	Moises V. Vela, Jr.
	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%
	Patrick S. Gregory
	 	 	 	 	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%
	Sara Jo Light
	 	$	37,500	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	37,500	 	 	 	5	%








 




			
	1	 	Interests in UDR Out-Performance I, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company (valued at $18.7495 per limited
liability company interest), common stock of United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. or
other consideration.
STATE v. PALESTINO.

No. COA06-185.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS53548, 04CRS53549)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel KING.

No. 409P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Southern Pines, for King.

W. Richard Moore, Special Deputy Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of August 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *185pursuant 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."
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00487- CV

Eld eridge Vanderhorst

Hills , Appellan t
v. Bell Coun ty Law E nf

orce m ent, etal., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 169 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 251 ,569 -B , H ONO RAB LE GORDO N G. ADAMS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Elderidg e Vande rhorst Hills had filed a p ro s e notice of appea l from the district court’s order dismiss ing his case aft er fi nding that his Petition did not comply with Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Cod e. S ee T ex . C iv. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (West 2002). Appellant’s brief was due in this Court on October 26, 2011, and is overdue
. I f an appellant fails to file a brief, this Court may dismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution unless the appellant rea sonably explains the failure and appellee is not signific antly injured by that failure
. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 38.8(a) (1). On November 15, 2011, we sent notice to appellant that his brief
was ov er d ue and that the appea l may be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if appellant did not submit a proper motion to this Court on or befor e November 28, 2011. To date, no brief or motion for e x tension of time has bee n filed. Acc ording ly , we dism iss the appeal for want of prose cution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: January

20, 2012

2
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to, and for purposes only of,
18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report
of KH Funding Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of KH
Funding Company.






Date:  May
20, 2009




/s/ Robert L. Harris


Robert
L. Harris


Chief
Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer








- 24
-
**EXHIBIT 31.3**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 I, David L. Sokol, certify that:
 
 1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofMidAmerican Funding, LLC;2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. 
 
 
 Date: November 4, 2004
 /s/ David L. Sokol
 David L. Sokol
 Chief Executive Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5735 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require institutions of 

higher education to disclose their emergency response and evacuation 

procedures. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. ETHERIDGE, 

and Mr. POE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

institutions of higher education to disclose their emergency response and evacuation procedures. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Virginia Tech Victims 

5 Campus Emergency Response Policy and Notification 

6 Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5735 IH

1 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND 

2 EVACUATION PROCEDURES. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 485(f)(1) of the Higher 

4 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(J) A statement of current campus poli7 cies regarding immediate emergency response 

8 and evacuation procedures, including the use of 

9 electronic and cellular communication (if appro10 priate), which shall include procedures— 

11 ‘‘(i) to activate notification procedures 

12 for students and employees in not more 

13 than 30 minutes after campus security au14 thorities confirm, or State or local law en15 forcement agencies report and confirm to 

16 campus security authorities, that an emer17 gency exists on campus or public property; 

18 ‘‘(ii) to publicize emergency response 

19 and evacuation procedures on an annual 

20 basis in a manner designed to reach stu21 dents and staff; and 

22 ‘‘(iii) to test emergency response and 

23 evacuation procedures on an annual 

24 basis.’’. 

25 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate 

26 regulations regarding the requirements applicable to an 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5735 IH

1 institution of higher education under section 485(f)(1)(J) 

2 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as added by sub3 section (a)) not later than April 1, 2009. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to any annual 

6 security report under section 485(f)(1) of the Higher Edu7 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)) prepared by 

8 an institution of higher education in calendar year 2009 

9 and any subsequent calendar year. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
DILLAHUNT v. CLARK.

No. COA05-1494.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Craven (03CVS1229).

Case without published opinion. Dismissed.