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

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3694 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to limit obligations 

to $350,000,000,000, absent majority approval by the Congress. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, and Mrs. LINCOLN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to 

limit obligations to $350,000,000,000, absent majority 

approval by the Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR 

4 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE. 

5 Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

6 Act (Public Law 110–343) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(3)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘unless there is enacted, 

9 within 15 calendar days of’’ and inserting 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3694 IS

1 ‘‘until there is enacted, not later than 15 cal2 endar days after’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘, effective upon the expi4 ration of such 15-day period,’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (c)— 

6 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

7 ‘‘DISAPPROVAL’’ and inserting ‘‘APPROVAL’’; 

8 (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘dis9 approving’’ and inserting ‘‘approving’’; 

10 (C) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘dis11 approval’’ and inserting ‘‘approval’’; and 

12 (D) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ‘‘dis13 approves’’ and inserting ‘‘approves’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Leonard HARDY.

No. 260P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 30, 2015.

Hannah Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hardy, Leonard.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

C. Branson Vickery, III, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th of July 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:

> "Withdrawn by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of July 2015."
STATE v. Russell Antoine COOPER.

No. 490P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Anthony M. Brannon, Raleigh, for Cooper.

*762C. Colon Wlloughby, Jr., District Attorney.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of October 2007 by State of NC for a Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Matthew N. GALE.

No. 666P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Matthew N. Gale, Pro Se.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of November 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Vance County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of November 2007 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for thethree months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Vincent L. Sadusky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Gary R. Chapman   Gary R. Chapman   Chief Executive Officer      Dated: May 10, 2006 /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Emilio DAVIS, Employee v. CITY OF NEW BERN, Employer Self-Insured (Crawford & Company, Servicing Agent).

No. 201P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Brian Ricci, Greenville, for Emilio Davis.

John Tomei, Raleigh, for City of New Bern, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 659 S.E.2d 53.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th day of April 2008 by Plaintiff 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 11th day of December 2008."

MARTIN, J., recused.
AMB PROPERTY, L.P.
  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each
of the undersigned officers of AMB Property Corporation, the sole general partner of AMB
Property, L.P. (the Operating Partnership), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge,
that:
 Report
   /s/ HAMID R. MOGHADAMHamid R. MoghadamChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer /s/ THOMAS S. OLINGERThomas S. OlingerChief Financial Officer
STATE v. Adam Courtney HARTLEY.

No. 220P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Adam Courtney Hartley, For Hartley, Adam Courtney.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Gary W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of June 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
Kerry WATTS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

No. 191A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2008.

John R. Buice, Charlotte, for Watts.

Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, for NCDENR.

Prior report: 182 N.C.App. 178, 641 S.E.2d 811.

*ORDER*

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral arguments on defendant's appeal on 17 March 2008, the Court *ex mero motu* withdraws its previous order, dated 11 October 2007, denying plaintiffs petition for discretionary review, and allows plaintiffs petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of ordering briefing on the questions of (i) defendant's preservation for appellate review of the issue of the public duty doctrine and (ii) the implication, if any, of the Industrial Commission's finding of fact number nine on the application of the public duty doctrine.

Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file and serve his brief, and defendant shall have thirty (30) days from the service of plaintiffs brief to file and serve its brief.

The Court will render its decision without further oral argument.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 27th day of March, 2008.
# CE2004078EN.01005101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/51

---

(2004/C 78 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Average cost of capital in the euro area

Subject:

Will the Commission please estimate whether there has been a reduction in the average cost of capital in real terms to euro-zone enterprises as a result of the introduction of the euro and the consequent growth of the euro-denominated corporate bond market?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

(8 July 2003)

While the Commission has monitored developments in the euro-denominated corporate bond market since 1999, the impact of these developments on the average cost of capital to euro-area enterprises has not been estimated directly. The cost of capital is the result of a range of interacting factors, both cyclical and structural, so that it is difficult to isolate the individual impact of increased access to direct debt financing in euro. Nevertheless, the availability of a larger and more liquid euro-denominated corporate bond market has widened the financing opportunities for euro-area enterprises and evidence suggests that this has resulted in lower financing costs. A recent study undertaken on behalf of the Commission (1) estimates that the rapid growth in the stock of euro-denominated corporate bonds since 1999 has reduced the corporate credit spread over the government benchmark by about 90 basis points and that — if integration and growth in the market were to continue at a similar pace — a further reduction of 40 basis points in corporate financing costs would be possible. The study also concludes that gross debt issuance costs in the euro area have already fallen significantly toward a level broadly in line with the United States. With regard to trading costs, the study notes that the secondary market for euro-denominated corporate debt is still very much in its infancy but that as the primary market grows and new, more transparent and liquid trading platforms develop, these costs are likely to fall in the future. More generally, an efficient corporate bond market — in providing an attractive alternative source of financing — can be expected to stimulate efficiency improvements in the equity market and the banking sector also.

1

---

(1)  See Chapter 4 of the Final Report on ‘Quantification of the Macro-Economic Impact of Integration of EU Financial Markets’ to the European Commission — Directorate-General for the Internal Market, by London Economics in association with PricewaterhouseCoopers and Oxford Economic Forecasting, November 2002, available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/mobil/overview.htm.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                    CNA SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2001

<Table>
<Caption>
                          COMPANY                              INCORPORATED IN
                          -------                              ---------------
<S>                                                            <C>
CNA Surety Corporation......................................   Delaware
Capsure Holdings Corp. (f/k/a Nucorp, Inc.).................   Delaware
  Capsure Financial Group, Inc..............................   Oklahoma
    (f/k/a/ Nucorp Energy of Oklahoma, Inc.)
       NI Acquisition Corp..................................   Texas
       SI Acquisition Corp..................................   Texas
         Surewest Financial Corp............................   South Dakota
           Surety Bonding Company of America................   South Dakota
           Western Surety Company...........................   South Dakota
           Troy Fain Insurance, Inc.........................   Florida
       Universal Surety Holding Corp........................   Texas
         Universal Surety of America........................   Texas
De Montfort Group Limited...................................   United Kingdom
</Table>
1

 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 04-03-00051-CVK, 06-03-00026-CVK, 06-11-00140-CVK, and

07-09-00132-CVK, filed in the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas. 

iii i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00526-CV

IN RE Jerry WANZER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and filed: August 27, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On July 22, 2008, relator filed a Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus to

Compel Appeal. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus; therefore, we DENY

the motion for leave to file as moot. 

Also on July 22, 2008, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking this court to order

the district clerk to forward his notices of appeal. On August 6, 2008, the district clerk filed the

notices of appeal in trial cause numbers 04-03-00051-CVK, 06-03-00026-CVK, 06-11-00140-CVK,

and 07-09-00132-CVK. Therefore, because the notices of appeal about which relator complains

have been filed with this court, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

PER CURIAM
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Jerome LAWING.

No. COA14-1288.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Steven Lorenzo LOWERY.

No. 145P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Steven Lorenzo Lowery, for Lowery, Steven Lorenzo.

Meghan Adelle Jones, for Lowery, Steven Lorenzo.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th of April 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> *868"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Scott HAMILTON.

No. 124PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hamilton, Michael Scott.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 11th of December 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Halifax County:

> "Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
STATE v. HILLIKER.

No. COA08-348.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Pitt (07CRS50246).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF STEPHANE BLAIS

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, 2012, 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 March 14, 2011, as amended March 30, 2011, entitled Red Lake Gold Operation, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Red Lake Report); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold Mines, 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 and 333-181116 on Form S-8 of the Company.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: March 1, 2013 |  |                              
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ Stephane Blais           
|                    |  | Name: Stephane Blais, P. Eng.
# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/337Show full title

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/337 of 2 March 2015 implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures            against Somalia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/337                     

# of 2 March 2015

# implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing                           Common Position 2009/138/CFSP(1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/231/CFSP.

(2)On 19 December 2014, the United Nations Security Council Committee, established pursuant to United Nations Security Council                              Resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009), deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set                              out in paragraphs 1, 3 and 7 of Security Council Resolution 1844 (2008).

(3)Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union.*                   

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

D. Reizniece-Ozola                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entry in Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP for the following person is deleted:

Mohamed SA'ID

1

OJ L 105, 27.4.2010, p. 17.
# C_2023173EN.01001601.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 5 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2023 — Pedro Francisco v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

(Case C-62/23, Pedro Francisco)

(2023/C 173/23)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 5 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pedro Francisco

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a police record may be the basis or foundation of the personal conduct of the individual concerned for the purposes of assessing whether a genuine threat exists when the purpose of a criminal trial is to prove whether that threat is genuine? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a police record may be the basis or foundation of the personal conduct of the individual concerned for the purposes of assessing whether a genuine threat exists when the purpose of a criminal trial is to prove whether that threat is genuine?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in the light of Article 27 of the directive, must the interpretation be that the governmental authority is required to set out expressly and in detail the facts on which that record is based and any judicial proceedings which have been brought and their outcome in order to confirm that we are not merely dealing with initial presumptions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in the light of Article 27 of the directive, must the interpretation be that the governmental authority is required to set out expressly and in detail the facts on which that record is based and any judicial proceedings which have been brought and their outcome in order to confirm that we are not merely dealing with initial presumptions?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132884 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132884 

 COA: 265464 

Wayne CC: 05-004422-01

KENNETH MAURICE COLLINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0416 

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. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 17, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00074

- CV

Texas Education Agency, and Mike Morath in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education, Appellant s

v.

Shepherd Independent School District

, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND T RIANA

DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on January 9, 2020 , denying

defendants ’ plea to the jurisdiction

. The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal,

an d having considered the mo tion , the Court agre es that the motion should be granted

.

Therefore, the Court grants the motion ; vacates the trial court ’ s J anuary 9, 2020 order denying

defendants ’ plea to the jurisdiction ; vacates this Court ’ s M arch 9 , 2020 te m porary order ; orders

the rel ease of the bond posted by appellee in conjunction with this matter ; and dismiss es th e

case

. The Court further orders that each part y shall pay the costs of appea l incurred by that

party , both in this Court and in the court be l ow.