alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3658 

AN ACT 

To require the accreditation of English language training 

programs, 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, 
2 

•S 3658 ES

1 SECTION 1. ACCREDITATION OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE 

2 TRAINING PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a) of the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (15)(F)(i), by striking ‘‘a lan6 guage’’ and inserting ‘‘an accredited language’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(52) The term ‘accredited language training pro9 gram’ means a language training program that is accred10 ited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary 

11 of Education.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para14 graph (2), the amendments made by subsection (a) 

15 shall— 

16 (A) take effect on the date that is 180 

17 days after the date of the enactment of this 

18 Act; and 

19 (B) apply with respect to applications for 

20 a nonimmigrant visa under section 

21 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and Na22 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) that 

23 are filed on or after the effective date described 

24 in subparagraph (A). 

25 (2) TEMPORARY EXCEPTION.— 
3 

•S 3658 ES

1 (A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sec2 tion 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Immigration and 

3 Nationality Act, as amended by subsection (a), 

4 during the 3-year period beginning on the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act, an alien seeking 

6 to enter the United States to pursue a course 

7 of study at a language training program that 

8 has been certified by the Secretary of Home9 land Security and has not been accredited or 

10 denied accreditation by an entity described in 

11 section 101(a)(52) of such Act may be granted 

12 a nonimmigrant visa under such section 

13 101(a)(15)(F)(i). 

14 (B) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT.—An 

15 alien may not be granted a nonimmigrant visa 

16 under subparagraph (A) if the sponsoring insti17 tution of the language training program to 

18 which the alien seeks to enroll does not— 

19 (i) submit an application for the ac20 creditation of such program to a regional 

21 or national accrediting agency recognized 

22 by the Secretary of Education within 1 

23 year after the date of the enactment of this 

24 Act; and 
4 

•S 3658 ES

1 (ii) comply with the applicable accred2 iting requirements of such agency. 

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, 

September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3658 

AN ACT 

To require the accreditation of English language 

training programs, and for other purposes.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00343

- CV

EVA RAMIREZ, INDIVID UALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ESTATE OF FERNANDO R AMIREZ, DECEASED , Appellant

v.

THOMAS H. SINCLAIR , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, T exas Trial Court No. 05

- 00

- 14658

- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eva Ramirez, individually, and as the personal representative of the Estate of
Fernando Ramirez, deceased, attempts to appeal a letter ruling on a joint motion for an
order confirming and approving the sale of real property in Navarro County. By letter
dated November 16, 2010, Ramirez was notified that the appeal was subject to dismissal
because (1) it appeared that the letter ruling is not a final, appealable order; (2) it was

unclear whether the joint motion which prompted the letter ruling is the type of motion
from which an order may be appealed; and (3) the appropriate jurisdiction might beRamirez v. Sinclair Page 2

Dallas where the decision to transfer venue was made. Ramirez was warned that the

Court would dismiss th e appeal unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, a
response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Ramirez was further
warned that the failure to file a response as requested will result in the dismissal of this
appeal without fu rther notification for failure to comply with this order or a notice from

the Clerk.
No response has been filed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a), (c).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Just ice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 22, 2010 [CV06]
Independent Accountants' Report



Board of Directors
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.
119 South Sandusky Avenue
Bucyrus, Ohio  44820


We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying   consolidated   statements  of  financial
condition, earnings, comprehensive income, and cash flows of Community Investors
Bancorp,  Inc. as of December 31, 1999, and for the three and six-month  periods
then ended. The financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the  consolidated  statement of  financial  condition as of June 30,
1999, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented  herein) and in our report
dated August 19, 1999, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial  statements.  In  our  opinion,  the  information  set  forth  in  the
accompanying  consolidated statement of financial condition as of June 30, 1999,
is fairly  stated,  in all material  respects,  in relation to the  consolidated
statement of financial condition from which it has been derived.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
February 11, 2000
# C_2023286EN.01001802.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Mainz (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2023 — TC v Firma Haus Jacobus Alten- und Altenpflegeheim gGmbH

(Case C-284/23, Haus Jacobus)

(2023/C 286/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TC

Defendant: Firma Haus Jacobus Alten- und Altenpflegeheim gGmbH

Question referred

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested under Article 267 TFEU to give a preliminary ruling on the question whether the German national provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz (Law on protection against dismissal), according to which a woman who, as a pregnant woman, enjoys special protection against dismissal must also mandatorily bring an action within the time limits laid down in those provisions in order to retain that protection, are compatible with Directive 92/85/EEC. (1)

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).

---
NUMBER 13-14-00380-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LAWRENCE JAMES JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas.

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s 

record.1 The reporter’s record in this cause was filed on July 30, 2014. Appellant has 

 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant 

to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 

(West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). 
2

advised this Court that the reporter’s record does not contain the following relevant items: 

pre-trial proceedings held on April 28, 2014, and voir dire proceedings held on April 29, 

2014. 

When a relevant item has been omitted from the reporter’s record, the appellate 

court may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate 

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(d). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED. 

The trial court clerk of the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County is directed to 

prepare a supplemental reporter’s record in this cause to include pre-trial proceedings 

held on April 28, 2014, and voir dire proceedings held on April 29, 2014, in trial court 

cause number 12-14114. The supplemental record shall be filed with this Court within 

30 days from the date of this order. 

This appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental reporter’s record 

and upon further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

12th day of January, 2015.
STATE v. Wayne WEST.

No. 584P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Sam Currin, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*770The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of November 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
.EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND 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 of Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                              
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer May 13, 2005





|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer May 13, 2005
IN RE J.L.

No. COA07-701.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2007.

Certification Date January 7, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JA1270, 06JA1271, 06JA1272).

Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Ryan Gabriel GARCELL.

No. 465A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 20, 2007.

Thomas Maher, Ann Marie Gomez, for Garcell.

Charlie C. Walker, Asheville, William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of December 2007 by State of NC for Extension of Time to file response to Defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of December 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2








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 accompanying Annual Report of Enviro Voraxial Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alberto DiBella, Principal 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, 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; and




(2)           The information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







By:       /s/ Alberto DiBella


Alberto DiBella


Principal Financial Officer


April 21, 2011
STATE of North Carolina v. Wayne Thomas JOHNSON.

No. 119P00-18.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2007.

Wayne Thomas Johnson, Pro Se.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 30th day of October 2007 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Alamance County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of November 2007."
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2014 of 25 September 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for red sea bream in EU            and international waters of VI, VII and VIII by vessels flying the flag of Ireland         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1019/2014                     

# of 25 September 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for red sea bream in EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII by vessels flying                        the flag of Ireland                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 1262/2012(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 25 September 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 1262/2012 of 20 December 2012 fixing for 2013 and 2014 the fishing opportunities for EU vessels                              for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ L 356, 22.12.2012, p. 22).
|  |
|--|

| Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm  | Grant Thornton LLPSun Life Plaza, East Tower1000-112 4th Avenue SWCalgary, ABT2P 0H3 T (403) 260-2500F (403) 260-2571www.GrantThornton.ca |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                          |

| § | our Independent Auditors’ Report dated February 25, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of Compton Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the consolidated statements of earnings (loss) and other comprehensive income, retained earnings and cash flow for each of the three yearsin the period ended December 31, 2009; and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| § | our Independent Auditors’ Report dated February 25, 2010 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2009; |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Calgary, Canada   | /s /Grant Thornton LLP      |   |
|-------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| February 25, 2010 | Grant Thornton LLP          |   |
|              | Chartered Accountants  |   |
FLIPPEN v. AMERICRAFT CARTONS, INC.

No. COA07-577.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 244728).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.