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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 438 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 438

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2007

  Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Leahy) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

    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 ``Fair Prescription Drug Competition 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(o) Prohibition of Authorized Generic Drugs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, no holder of a new drug application approved under 
        subsection (c) shall manufacture, market, sell, or distribute 
        an authorized generic drug, direct or indirectly, or authorize 
        any other person to manufacture, market, sell, or distribute an 
        authorized generic drug.
            ``(2) Authorized generic drug.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `authorized generic drug'--
                    ``(A) means any version of a listed drug (as such 
                term is used in subsection (j)) that the holder of the 
                new drug application approved under subsection (c) for 
                that listed drug seeks to commence marketing, selling, 
                or distributing, directly or indirectly, after receipt 
                of a notice sent pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with 
                respect to that listed drug; and
                    ``(B) does not include any drug to be marketed, 
                sold, or distributed--
                            ``(i) by an entity eligible for exclusivity 
                        with respect to such drug under subsection 
                        (j)(5)(B)(iv); or
                            ``(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of 
                        any exclusivity with respect to such drug under 
                        such subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv).''.
                                 <all>
```
Betty L. GRANT, Executrix of the Estate of Tommy J. Grant v. HIGH POINT REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM.

No. 474P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Joseph P. Booth, III, Greensboro, for High Point Regional Health Sys.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Harold L. Kennedy, III, for Betty L. Grant.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 645 S.E.2d 851.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of July 2007 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
LYTLE v. RICE.

No. COA08-226.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (06CVS6374).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 513 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous authority on 

the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to address interference 

with State or Federal law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. BOND) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to revive previous 

authority on the use of the Armed Forces and the militia 

to address interference with State or Federal law, 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. REVIVAL OF PREVIOUS AUTHORITY ON USE OF 

4 ARMED FORCES AND MILITIA TO ADDRESS 

5 INTERFERENCE WITH STATE OR FEDERAL 

6 LAW. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF AMENDMENTS MADE BY PUBLIC

8 LAW 109–364.—Section 1076 of the John Warner NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:15 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S513.IS S513

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 513 IS

1 tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

2 (Public Law 109–364), and the amendments made by that 

3 section, are repealed. 

4 (b) REVIVAL OF PREVIOUS AUTHORITY.—The provi5 sions of chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code, that 

6 were amended by section 1076 of the John Warner Na7 tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 

8 as such provisions were in effect on the day before the 

9 date of the enactment of the John Warner National De10 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, are hereby 

11 revived. 

12 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

13 (1) HEADING AMENDMENT.—The heading of 

14 chapter of 15 of title 10, United States Code, is 

15 amended to read as follows: 

‘‘CHAPTER 15—INSURRECTION’’. 

16 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—(A) The tables 

17 of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, 

18 United States Code, and at the beginning of part I 

19 of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the 

20 item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the fol21 lowing new item: 

‘‘15. Insurrection ................................................................................ 331’’. 

22 (B) The table of sections at the beginning of 

23 chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 513 IS

1 item relating to section 333 and inserting the fol2 lowing new item: 

‘‘333. Interference with State and Federal law.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed June 22, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00285-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J. AND E.J., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-50327-2014 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

We reinstate this appeal. We abated this appeal in 2018 due to bankruptcy. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. The Court conducted an independent review of the federal 

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system which does not show a 

pending bankruptcy case associated with this appeal. 

We notified the parties by letter, requesting they inform the Court of the status 

of the bankruptcy and of this appeal. We cautioned that the failure to respond would 

result in the appeal being dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b), (c). To 

date, neither party has responded. 
 –2– 

Because we gave the parties an opportunity to show why we should not 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and no one responded, we dismiss this 

appeal. See id. 42.3(b), (c). 

180285F.P05 

 

/Robert D.Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J. AND 

E.J., CHILDREN, Appellant 

No. 05-18-00285-CV 

 On Appeal from the 429th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 429-50327-

2014. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered June 22, 2022
# Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014 (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

S

# Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014

# 2014 asp 11                     

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 20th March 2014 and received Royal Assent                        on 29th April 2014                     

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to amend the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985; and for connected purposes.

## GeneralS

### 54Meaning of “the 1985 Act”S

In this Act, “the 1985 Act” means the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c.66).                  

### 55Ancillary provisionS

(1)The Scottish Ministers may by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or transitory provision                        or savings as they consider necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, any provision made by or under                        this Act.                  

(2)The power of Scottish Ministers to make an order under subsection (1) includes power to make different provision for different                        purposes.                  

(3)An order under subsection (1) may modify any enactment (including this Act).                  

(4)An order under subsection (1) containing provisions which add to, replace or omit any part of the text of an Act is subject                        to the affirmative procedure.                  

(5)Otherwise, an order under subsection (1) is subject to the negative procedure.                  

### 56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  

### 57CommencementS

(1)This section and sections 54, 55 and 58 come into force on the day after Royal Assent.                  

(2)The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint.                  

(3)An order under subsection (2) may contain transitory or transitional provision or savings.                  

### 58Short titleS

The short title of this Act is the Bankruptcy and Debt Advice (Scotland) Act 2014.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, LAWRENCE, and RUSSELL, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Steven K. MITCHELL

Gunnery Sergeant (E-7), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 201900134

Decided: 31 October 2019.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary.

Sentence adjudged 31 January 2019 by a special court-martial 

convened at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina,

consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Military Judge: Lieutenant 

Colonel Michael D. Libretto, USMC. Sentence approved by the

convening authority: confinement for 220 days, reduction to pay grade 

E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: Commander R. Donald Evans, Jr., JAGC, USN. 

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.

_________________________
United States v. Mitchell, No. 201900134

2

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. 

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court
(LOGO)NORWEST MORTGAGE                            Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
                                                  405 S.W. 5th Street
                                                  Des Moines, IA 50309-4626
                                                  515/237-6000


                              Management Assertion

As of and for the year ended December 3l, 1997, Norwest Mortgage Banking has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers.  As of this same period, Norwest Mortgage Banking
had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of
$100 million and $20 million, respectively.


/s/Mark C. Oman                                                 January 14,1998
Mark C. Oman                                                    Date  
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

/s/Robert K. Chapman                                            January 14, 1998
Robert K. Chapman                                               Date   
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE

/s/Mike Heid                                                    January 14, 1998
Mike Heid                                                       Date   
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT LOAN SERVICING
HATMAKER v. HATMAKER.

No. COA07-1291.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (05CVD1416).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
# CE2004088EN.01060001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/600 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/600

---

(2004/C 88 E/0613)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the City of Frosinone

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the City of Frosinone, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture, can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the City of Frosinone has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the City of Frosinone has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
Exhibit 31.1
                          CERTIFICATION

I, Jeffrey Wattenberg, certifity that:

     1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-
QSB of Othnet, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue  statements 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, 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 small business
issuer'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; and

           (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting  that
occurred  during the small business issuer's most  recent  fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely  to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal  control
over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and  I  have  disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation  of
internal  control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

            (a)    All   significant  deficiencies  and  material
weaknesses  in the design or operation of internal  control  over
financial  reporting  which are reasonable  likely  to  adversely
affect  the  small business issuer's ability to record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

           (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in  the
small   business   issuer's  internal  control   over   financial
reporting.


Date: September 15, 2003           /s/ Jeffrey Wattenberg
                                   Jeffrey Wattenberg,
                                   President and Chief Executive
                                   Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 19 (Monday, January 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4890-4891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1688]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting on 
Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a 
meeting on February 15, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Tuesday, February 15, 2005-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
    The Subcommittee will continue review of the development of the 
TRACE thermal-hydraulic computer code. The Subcommittee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC 
staff and their contractors regarding this

[[Page 4891]]

matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant 
issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, 
if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to 
contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to 
the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: January 25, 2005.
John H. Flack,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 05-1688 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                   <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                             5,294,088
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,433,484
<ALLOWANCES>                          84,366
<INVENTORY>                        5,822,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  12,899,316
<PP&E>                               455,200
<DEPRECIATION>                       258,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    13,156,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              4,422,926
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              44,653
<OTHER-SE>                         8,688,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      13,156,042
<SALES>                           18,695,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  18,695,544
<CGS>                             14,426,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      3,467,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (171,018)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       9,367
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      973,078
<INCOME-TAX>                         220,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  752,151
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         752,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         $ 0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                         $ 0.17
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. BOGAR.

No. COA07-1019.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06CRS213894, 06CRS213895).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.