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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 70 

To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial Day, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To restore the traditional day of observance of Memorial 

Day, 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. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OB4 SERVANCE OF MEMORIAL DAY. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION OF LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY.— 

6 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.’’ and 

8 inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘Memorial Day, May 30.’’. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 70 IS 

1 (b) OBSERVANCES AND CEREMONIES.—Section 116 

2 of title 36, United States Code, is amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘The last 

4 Monday in May’’ and inserting ‘‘May 30’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (b)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of para7 graph (3); 

8 (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 

9 paragraph (5); and 

10 (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the 

11 following new paragraph (4): 

12 ‘‘(4) calling on the people of the United States 

13 to observe Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies for 

14 showing respect for American veterans of wars and 

15 other military conflicts; and’’. 

16 (c) DISPLAY OF FLAG.—Section 6(d) of title 4, 

17 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the last Mon18 day in May;’’ and inserting ‘‘May 30;’’. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. William Charles COMPTON.

No. 431P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Compton, William Charles.

Staples Flughes.

Brenda Menard, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of December 2015 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 17th of March 2016."
##### 



1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc.;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 officer(s) 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 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 year that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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
functions):
 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.
  /s/ Joseph P. Schneider
# CE2004078EN.01069102.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/691 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/691

---

(2004/C 78 E/0738)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3857/02

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject:   Slaughter of baby seal pups on the White Sea, Russia

Subject:

My previous written question on this subject (P-2365/02 (1)) asked the Commission to state how many baby seal pups were clubbed to death on the White Sea in the year 2001. It also asked the Commission to raise the matter, which appals so many people in my constituency and elsewhere, with the Russian authorities at the earliest opportunity.

1

In the reply, the Commissioner acknowledged that the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea has been an ongoing concern in recent years. Will the Commission now make renewed efforts to ascertain and publish the number of seal pups that were slaughtered on the White Sea in 2001, and make preparations for obtaining similar figures in respect of 2002?

Furthermore, will the Commission also undertake to raise the matter in an effective way with the Russian authorities, if necessary seeking their cooperation in obtaining this elusive information, and state when this will be done?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

(27 January 2003)

The Commission will continue to raise the issue of the treatment of baby seals in the White Sea with the Russian authorities in the context of its Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, in particular at the Sub-Committee on Environment.

As regards the number of seal pups killed during recent years the Russian authorities have so far indicated that they do not have such information, but they believe that numbers should have been decreasing over the last few years reflecting a downward trend in profitability. Figures from other sources are not sufficiently up to date to assess the situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 18.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00008-CV 

RUTH HOWARD APPELLANT

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 

ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE MAE

APPELLEE 

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On March 15, 2013, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk 

responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that 

payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as 

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2). See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(a)(2). We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

unless appellant, within ten days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record and provided this court with proof of payment. 

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s 

record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

37.3(b), 42.3(b).

Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: April 25, 2013
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

137155 (3) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

TERRY BROOKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 137155 

MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS, 

 Defendant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $6.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$369.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 8, 2008 

Clerk
Exhibit 99.16

CONSENT OF GUILLERMO PAREJA

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp
Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and documents:



|1. | The technical report dated January 8, 2014, entitled Goldcorp Inc., Peñasquito Polymetallic Operation, Zacatecas State, Mexico NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Peñasquito
Report); and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Peñasquito Report and the Peñasquito Mine, and the properties described therein.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF
into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2014



/s/ Guillermo ParejaName: Guillermo Pareja, P.Geo.
WARREN LEE EDWARDS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5009

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 21, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Angela Cox, Judge.

Warren Lee Edwards, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statements of Income for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          29,044
<SECURITIES>                                    56,345
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,565
<PP&E>                                           6,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,267
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,681
<SALES>                                         50,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,115
<CGS>                                           17,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,951
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,188
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,763
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54082-54083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18043]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IPC--Association Connecting Electronics 
Industries

    Notice is hereby given that, on August 12, 2005, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IPC--Association Connecting 
Electronics Industries (``IPC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since 
September 14, 2004,

[[Page 54083]]

IPC has published 9 Standards, undertaken 17 New Standard Setting 
Activities, and continues with 56 Standard Setting Activities as Works 
in Progress. For further information on these activities, please go to 
IPC's Web site: http://www.ipc.org/status.
    On September 14, 2004, IPC filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
October 21, 2004 (69 FR 61868).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-18043 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
STATE of North Carolina v. Paul Stephen HARPER.

No. COA15-784.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No plain error.
Samuel MORRISON, Employee, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART, Employer, and Claims Management, Inc., Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA15-274.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
BLOCK MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC.
                    ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1997-2

                  MASTER SERVICER ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                                 March 31, 1998


      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.16 of that certain agreement dated
as of July 1, 1997, by and between BLOCK MORTGAGE  FINANCE,  INC., as Depositor,
BLOCK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, as Master Servicer, COMPANION MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
as Seller,  and BANKERS  TRUST  COMPANY OF  CALIFORNIA,  N.A.,  as Trustee  (the
"PSA"), I, Bret G. Wilson, Vice President of the Master Servicer, hereby certify
as follows:

      (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar  year  and of  performance  under  the  PSA  has  been  made  under  my
supervision;

      (ii) to the best of my  individual  knowledge  based on such  review,  the
Master  Servicer has  fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under the PSA for such
year; and

      (iii)the Master Servicer's  short-term commercial paper rating is A1 (S&P)
and P-1 (Moody's).

Capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
set forth in the PSA.

MASTER SERVICER

BLOCK FINANCIAL CORPORATION


/s/  Bret G. Wilson
------------------------
By:   Bret G. Wilson
      Vice President
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40756

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NAUN MARTINEZ-FIGUEROA, also known as Nahum Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-993-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Naun Martinez-Figueroa pleaded guilty to being found in the

United States after previous deportation and was sentenced to 37

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 

Martinez-Figueroa argues that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. 

Specifically, he argues that the viability of Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is in doubt in light of

later Supreme Court cases. 
No. 05-40756

-2-

Martinez-Figueroa’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres. Although Martinez-Figueroa contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). MartinezFigueroa properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. David Matthew LOWE.

No. 278PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law, for Lowe, David Matthew.

Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th of August 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of August 2015 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 28th of January 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).