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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3309 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                      Calendar No. 1062
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3309

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 
            William ``Bill'' Sandberg Post Office Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2008

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Coleman) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

           September 24 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 
            William ``Bill'' Sandberg Post Office Building.

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

SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ``BILL'' SANDBERG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor 
William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''.
                                                      Calendar No. 1062

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3309

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 
            William ``Bill'' Sandberg Post Office Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

           September 24 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                             List of Subsidiaries
                            ----------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

        Name of Subsidiary                      Jurisdiction of Organization
        ------------------                      ----------------------------
 <S>                                                    <C>
        Creditrust Funding I LLC                        Delaware
        Creditrust SPV2, LLC                            Delaware
        Creditrust SPV98-2, LLC                         Deleware
        Creditrust SPV99-1, LLC                         Deleware
        Creditrust SPV99-2, LLC                         Deleware
        Creditrust Card Services Corporation            Maryland
        Creditrust SPV99-2 Capital, Inc.                Deleware

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 299/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 299/2014 of 24 March 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 299/2014                     

# of 24 March 2014

# 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, 24 March 2014.

*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.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

National Defense University.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the National Security Education Board Group of Advisors. The purpose of the meeting is to review and make recommendations to the Board concerning requirements established by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act, Title VIII of Public Law 102-183, as amended. The National Security Education Board Group of Advisors meeting is open to the public. The delay of this notice resulted from the short time-frame needed to coordinate the schedules of the various officials whose participation was judged essential to a meaningful public discussion.

# DATES:

September 13, 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

The Academy for Educational Development, Conference Center, 8th Floor, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dr. Edmond J. Collier, Director for Programs, National Security Education Program, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1210, Rosslyn P.O. Box 20010, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2248; (703) 696-1991. Electronic mail address:                         *colliere@ndu.edu.*

Dated: August 25, 2005.

Jeannette Owings-Ballard,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-17310 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### In the Matter of Robert McCullough, Appellant, v Barbara Brown, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 447]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Thomas W. Polito, R.), entered October 10, 2003 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner visitation with his two children and delayed the visitation until three years from the date of the order on appeal herein.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to petitioner’s contention, Family Court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to delay the visitation of petitioner with his two children until three years from the date of the order on appeal herein, at which time the children will be, respectively, eight and nine years old. Petitioner is incarcerated, and the court noted that he has had no contact with his children for at least three years and that he “has no relationship with the children from their perspective.” We conclude that the court properly determined, following a hearing, that it was in the best interests of the children to delay visitation so that the children could continue to grow and develop before commencing visitation with their father *(see generally Matter of Lonobile v Betkowski,*295 AD2d 994 [2002]; *Matter of Mills v Sweeting,*278 AD2d 943, 943-944 [2000]; *Matter of Thomas v Thomas,*277 AD2d 935 [2000]).

Also contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not err in rendering its decision without the benefit of psychological evidence. “[N] either the parties nor the Law Guardian requested any psychological examinations, and it cannot be said that the court should have sua sponte ordered the examinations where, as here, there otherwise was sufficient testimony from the parties for the court to resolve the [matter]” *(Matter of Tracy v Tracy,*309 AD2d 1252, 1253 [2003]; *see also Matter of Bougor v*
      *1350
      *Murray,*283 AD2d 695, 696 [2001]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                           EXHIBIT 23(b)

                     INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Solutia Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-34561, 333-34587, 333-34589, 333-34591, 333-34593,
333-34683, 333-35689, 333-47911, 333-51081, 333-74463, 333-74465,
333-32112 and 333-39972) on Form S-8 of Solutia Inc. and the
registration statements (Nos. 333-75812, 333-89818, and 333-99705) on
Form S-3 of Solutia Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2004, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Astaris LLC and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related statements of operations,
changes in members' equity/(deficit), and cash flows for each of the
years in the two year period ended December 31, 2003, which report
appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of Solutia
Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
March 12, 2004
[Cite as State ex rel. Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Heinlen, 112 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-6508.]

THE STATE EX REL. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. HEINLEN ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Heinlen, 112 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-

Ohio-6508.] 

State ex rel. Internatl. Paper v. Trucinski followed — Court of appeals’ 

judgment affirmed.

(No. 2006-0569 — Submitted November 15, 2006 – Decided 

December 27, 2006.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 05AP-360, 2006-Ohio-428. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, citing Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 

2003-Ohio-5849, 797 N.E.2d 1256, has asked us to overrule State ex rel. Thomas 

v. Indus. Comm., 97 Ohio St.3d 37, 2002-Ohio-5306, 776 N.E.2d 62. We 

declined an identical invitation in State ex rel. Internatl. Paper v. Trucinski, 106 

Ohio St.3d 203, 2005-Ohio-4557, 833 N.E.2d 728. Accordingly, for the same 

reasons set forth in Trucinski, we again decline the invitation. The judgment of 

the court of appeals is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., William Michael Hanna, and Greta 

M. Kearns, for appellant. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 Heinzerling & Goodman, L.L.C., and Jonathan H. Goodman, for appellee 

Rosalinda Heinlen. 

 Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Douglas R. Unver, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 

______________________
STATE of North Carolina v. Nathan Aaron CROSS a/k/a Michael Thomas Ferguson.

No. COA07-868.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

January 15, 2008.

Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 12 March 2007 by Judge Laura J. Bridges in County McDowell Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 December 2007.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Terence D. Friedman, for the State.

Peter Wood, Raleigh, for Defendant.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

Nathan Cross (defendant) appeals from judgments revoking probation. We dismiss his appeal as moot.

In 2003 Defendant was convicted of two charges of larceny of a motor vehicle, and one charge of felonious breaking and entering. He received suspended sentences of five to six months imprisonment in each case, and was placed on supervised probation. Probation violation reports were filed in June 2004. On 12 March 2007 the court revoked Defendant's probation and activated the five to six month sentences previously entered in each case. Defendant was given credit in each case for seventy-one (71) days already served.

The original judgments provided for consecutive sentences, but upon revocation the sentences were served concurrently. Although not made a part of the Record on Appeal, we take judicial notice of the fact that the North Carolina Department of Correction records indicate that Defendant's sentence expired and he was released from custody on 20 June 2007.

______________________

"`[A]s a general rule this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist.' By reason of the discharge of the [Defendant] from custody, the subject matter of this [appeal] has ceased to exist and the issue is moot." *In re Swindell,* 326 N.C. 473, 474-75, 390 S.E.2d 134, 135 (1990) quoting *Kendrick v. Cain,* 272 N.C. 719, 722, 159 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1968) (other citation omitted). *See also, e.g., Wilson v.*

*726*Wilson,* 134 N.C.App. 642, 518 S.E.2d 255 (1999) (appeal from expired domestic violence protective order dismissed as moot); *In re Cowles,* 108 N.C.App. 74, 422 S.E.2d 443 (1992) (juvenile's appeal from training school commitment dismissed as moot where juvenile reached age of 18 years during pendency of appeal).

"In general, `an appeal presenting a question which has become moot will be dismissed.'" *State v. Bowes,* 159 N.C.App. 18, 21, 583 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2003), *opinion vacated and dismissed as moot,* 360 N.C. 55, 619 S.E.2d 502 (2005) (quoting *Matthews v. Dept. of Transportation,* 35 N.C.App. 768, 770, 242 S.E.2d 653, 654 (1978)).

We conclude that the subject of this appeal is moot and that Defendant's appeal must be

Dismissed.

Judges TYSON and JACKSON concur.
# Political and Security Committee Decision EUTM Mali/2/2014Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision EUTM Mali/2/2014 of 13 May 2014 on the acceptance of third States' contributions            to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) (2014/285/CFSP)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision EUTM Mali/2/2014                     

# of 13 May 2014

# on the acceptance of third States' contributions to the European Union military mission to contribute to the training of the                        Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)                     

# (2014/285/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/34/CFSP of 17 January 2013 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the                           training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali)(1), and in particular Article 8(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2013/34/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to take                              the relevant decisions on acceptance of the proposed contributions by third States.

(2)Following recommendation on contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro by the EU Mission Commander                              and the advice from the European Union Military Committee, the contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro                              should be accepted.

(3)In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and                              to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation                              of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

1.The contributions from Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro to the European Union military mission to contribute                        to the training of the Malian Armed Forces (EUTM Mali) are accepted and are considered to be significant.                  

2.Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Montenegro are exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUTM Mali.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 13 May 2014.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 14, 18.1.2013, p. 19.
##### 



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 annual report of Covad Communications Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K/A (for Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003) as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Amendment), I, Mark A.
Richman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18.
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Amendment 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 Amendment fairly represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.By:
    
    /s/ MARK A. RICHMANMark A. RichmanExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerDate:
May 17, 2004
STATE v. BUFFALOE.

No. COA06-406.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Halifax (04CRS53105, 04CRS53106).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal Dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesse THOMPSON, Jr.

No. 79PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Thompson.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 654 S.E.2d 832.

*ORDER*

Defendant's Petition for Discretionary Review is denied. Defendant's Motion for Appropriate Relief is dismissed without prejudice to defendant's right to file a Motion for Appropriate Relief in the trial division. The State's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is allowed.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 10th day of April, 2008.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3424 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3424

  To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that matching 
funds are not required under the State Homeland Security Grant Program 
                 or the Urban Area Security Initiative.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2008

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify that matching 
funds are not required under the State Homeland Security Grant Program 
                 or the Urban Area Security Initiative.

    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 ``Homeland Security Partners 
Preservation Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON REQUIRING MATCHING.

    Section 2002 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 603) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Limitation on Requiring Matching.--The Administrator may not 
require the recipient of a grant under section 2003 or 2004 to provide 
a non-Federal contribution for an activity carried out with the grant 
as a condition of the grant.''.
                                 <all>
```