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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 610 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 610

  To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment for 
retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, 
  of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2007

Mr. Rockefeller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the effective date of the modification of treatment for 
retirement annuity purposes of part-time service before April 7, 1986, 
  of certain Department of Veterans Affairs health-care professionals.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF MODIFICATION OF TREATMENT FOR RETIREMENT 
              ANNUITY PURPOSES OF CERTAIN PART-TIME SERVICE OF CERTAIN 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS.

    (a) Effective Date.--The effective date of the amendment made by 
section 132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
Enhancement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-135; 115 Stat. 2454) shall be 
January 23, 2002, in the case of health care professionals referred to 
in subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, United States Code (as 
so amended), who retire on or after that date and in the case of health 
care professionals referred to in such subsection (c) who retired 
before such date, but after April 7, 1986.
    (b) Recomputation of Annuity.--The Office of Personnel Management 
shall recompute the annuity of each health-care professional described 
in the first sentence of subsection (c) of section 7426 of title 38, 
United States Code (as so amended), who retired before January 23, 
2002, but after April 7, 1986, in order to take into account the 
amendment made by section 132 of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001. Such recomputation shall 
be effective with respect to annuities paid for months after January 
23, 2002.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10748

Conference Calendar

DARIUS NIGEL SAULS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MARTHA E MAES; KELLY J SOOTER; ALAN N DANNER; THERESA L

HENDRICK; NARCISO A SANCHEZ; KENDALL T RICHERSON

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CV-291

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darius Nigel Sauls, Texas prisoner # 917032, appeals from the dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as malicious. Sauls argues that the district

court erred in dismissing his complaint as duplicative of the complaint in case

no. 06-CV-276. Sauls reasserts his arguments that his civil rights were violated

by verbal threats, false disciplinary proceedings, and seizures of his property

from his cell.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10748

2

Sauls does not argue, much less show, that the instant suit does not

duplicate the claims in district court case no. 06-CV-276. Thus, Sauls has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the

lawsuit was repetitious and, therefore, malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson, 846

F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988); See also Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 994-95

(5th Cir. 1993); Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir. 1989).

Sauls’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as

frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). The district court’s dismissal of Sauls’s complaint and the dismissal of

this appeal as frivolous count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). The dismissal

by the district court of case no. 06-CV-276 as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim also counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 387-88.

Because Sauls has now accumulated three strikes, he is barred from proceeding

in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury.” § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
781.0696
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         254,266
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,266
<PP&E>                                      18,793,585
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,074,225)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,973,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          426,963
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,546,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,973,626
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               961,415
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                541,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            541,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   541,742
<EPS-BASIC>                                    22.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    22.51



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the annual report of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for theperiod ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Lindsay A. Hall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.          March 13, 2009 /s/ Lindsay A. Hall   Lindsay A. Hall   Chief Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toGoldcorp Inc. and will be retained by Goldcorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.This certification accompanies the annual report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN RE D.N.

No. COA08-870.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JT1247).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136611 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136611 

 COA: 270838 

Kalamazoo CC: 04-002417-FC 

HYLAND STEPHEN STERLING, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2008 

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

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

p0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael B. POSTELL.

No. 354P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Ryan McKaig, for Postell, Michael B.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of September 2014 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 20th of August 2015."

Ervin, J. recused.
PAWLUS v. WISE-PAWLUS.

No. COA07-1539.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Hoke (06CVD285).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; Vacated and remanded in part.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17794]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MB Docket No. 05-181; FCC 05-159]


Implementation of Section 210 of the Satellite Home Viewer 
Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004 To Amend Section 338 of the 
Communications Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission is correcting a Final 
Rule summary that was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 
2005 (70 FR 51658). In this document, the Commission corrects paragraph 
(c)(6) of the 47 CFR 76.66.

DATES: Effective September 30, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact Eloise Gore, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce8ba2a1a7bdabe089a1bcab8ea8adade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8cc9e0e3e5ffe9a2cbe3fee9cceaefefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a> of the Media 
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.

SUPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 05-17324 published on August 31, 
2005 (70 FR 51658), make the following correction.
    1. On page 51668, in the third column, the last sentence of 
paragraph (c)(6) is corrected to read as follows:

    A noncommercial television broadcast station located in a local 
market in Alaska or Hawaii must request carriage by October 1, 2005, 
for carriage of its signal that originates as an analog signal for 
carriage commencing on December 8, 2005, and by April 1, 2007, for 
its signal that originates as a digital signal for carriage 
commencing on June 8, 2007 and ending on December 31, 2008.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17794 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of North Carolina v. Lee Edward HUTCHENS.

No. 21P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Craig M. Cooley, Cary, for Hutchens, Lee Edward.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

David Learner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of January 2016 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."
STATE of North Carolina v. William Anthony BARNES.

No. 180P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of May 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 5th of November 2015."
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Jeremiah JARVIS, Melissa Shuler, Jarrett Lance Carland, Elana Barnett Carland, and Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants.

No. COA15-364.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0001360

27-JAN-2016

08:24 AM
----

(2004/C 65 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1847/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Compliance with the SEIA directive in connection with the Milan-Bergamo-Brescia super-highway construction project

Pursuant to the Commission's recent directive on strategic environmental impact assessment (SEIA (1)), any plans for the construction of major new items of transport infrastructure must be accompanied by an assessment of all practicable alternatives (so that the one which will have least impact on the environment can be chosen) and the involvement of the local people affected, their associations and the local authorities, so that the necessary information can be provided and local people's opinions sought.

However, this right to access information and to express views has been (and is still being) denied in the case of the plans (promoted by the Italian Government) for a Milan-Bergamo-Brescia super-highway (known as the Mibebre highway), since the local people, associations and authorities know only what has appeared in the press.

Furthermore, what has so far been revealed through the press is particularly worrying: the super-highway will apparently damage or destroy cultural artefacts and natural features, including four regional parks. These include the valuable Naviglio Martesana, which is in the process of being recognised as a Unesco world heritage site.

In view of the above, does the Commission not think that it should take action vis-à-vis the Italian Government with a view to ensuring that, in the case of the Mibebre project, the SEIA directive and EU environmental laws in general are observed and enforced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment establishes, in its Article 13, that Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 21 July 2004.

At this stage, therefore, this Directive is not applicable, nor has Italy yet communicated to the Commission the measures adopted in order to comply with it.

Apart from the above-mentioned Directive, the information given by the Honourable Member has not revealed any specific grounds of complaint on the application of other Community environmental provisions to the specific case. Therefore, in the light of the above, no breach of Community environmental legislation can be identified at present.

----

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

----
Victor HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. Patricia E. CHAMBERS, Mattocks Enterprises, Inc.; Steve N. Mattocks, individually, Jason L. Panciera, individually; and Cawthorne, Moss & Panciera, P.C., Defendants.

No. COA15-590.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT37**CONSENT OF AMEC AMERICAS LTD.**     We hereby consent to the use of our name in connection with the following report anddocuments, which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registrationstatement on Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated October 26, 2005, entitled “Pueblo Viejo Project,Province of Sanchez Ramirez, Dominican Republic, 43-101 Technical Report and QualifiedPerson’s Review” (the “Placer Dome Report”).  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to our name in connection with information relating to the Placer Dome Reportand the property described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ S. Toevs
# C_2008051EN.01004102.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/41

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 January 2008 — Scippacercola and Terezakis v Commission

(Case T-306/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Allegation of excessive charges applied by the operator of Athens International Airport - Rejection of the complaint - No Community interest)

(2008/C 51/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Isabella Scippacercola (Brussels, Belgium) and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels) (represented by: A. Krystallidis and G. Stylianakis, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Hellström, A. Nijenhuis and F. Amato, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 2 May 2005 pursuant to Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting complaint No COMP/D3/38469 concerning the levy of certain charges by the operator of Athens International Airport at Spata and by Olympic Fuel Company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

1

---
TATE v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

No. 437P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Herman V. Tate, Hoffman, for Tate, Herman V.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Public Safety.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of December 2015 by Plaintiff for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
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 of Defense

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0830, Tuesday, September 27, 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Noesis, Inc., 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Vicki Schneider, Noesis, Inc., 4100 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22203, 703-741-0300.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development efforts in electronics and photonics with a focus on benefits to national defense. These reviews may form the basis for research and development programs initiated by the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to be conducted by industry, universities or in government laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on rf technology, microelectronics, electro-optics, and electronic materials.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 2) it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: September 12, 2005.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-18561  Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M