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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3985 

To sunset funding under sections 1341 and 1342, and to repeal section 

1343, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2014 

Mr. WESTMORELAND introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To sunset funding under sections 1341 and 1342, and to 

repeal section 1343, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Obamacare’s 

5 Risky Provisions Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3985 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUNSETTING FUNDING UNDER SECTIONS 1341 AND 

2 1342, AND REPEALING SECTION 1343, OF 

3 PPACA. 

4 (a) SUNSETTING SECTION 1341.—Notwithstanding 

5 any other provision of law— 

6 (1) no payments may be required of health in7 surance issuers and third-party administrators under 

8 section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Afford9 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18061) for any period 

10 after December 31, 2014; and 

11 (2) payments shall be made to health insurance 

12 issuers under such section only to the extent of 

13 available funds, as limited under paragraph (1). 

14 (b) SUNSETTING SECTION 1342.—Notwithstanding 

15 any other provision of law, the risk corridor program 

16 under section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Afford17 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18062) shall only apply for 2014 

18 and shall not apply for 2015 or 2016. 

19 (c) REPEALING SECTION 1343.—Section 1343 of the 

20 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

21 18063) is repealed, effective for years after 2014. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Luis OVANDO.

No. 210P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Laura Edwards Parker, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Luis Ovando, for Ovando, Luis.

Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of June 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 20th of August 2015."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3735 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3735

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the new markets 
 tax credit and provide designated allocations for areas impacted by a 
                       decline in manufacturing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

Mr. Carney (for himself and Mr. Stivers) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the new markets 
 tax credit and provide designated allocations for areas impacted by a 
                       decline in manufacturing.

    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 ``Manufacturing Communities Investment 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT WITH DESIGNATED ALLOCATIONS 
              FOR AREAS IMPACTED BY DECLINE IN MANUFACTURING.

    (a) Extension of Credit.--Section 45D(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking the period at the end of 
subparagraph (G) and inserting ``, and'' and by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
                    ``(H) $5,000,000,000 for 2014, 2015, and 2016.''.
    (b) Allocations Designated for Areas Impacted by Decline in 
Manufacturing.--Section 45D(f) of such Code is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Allocations for areas impacted by decline in 
        manufacturing.--The new markets tax credit limitation otherwise 
        determined under paragraph (1) for calendar years 2014, 2015, 
        and 2016 shall each be increased by $1,000,000,000. A qualified 
        community development entity shall be eligible for an 
        allocation under paragraph (2) of the increase described in the 
        preceding sentence only if a significant mission of such entity 
        is providing investments and services to persons in the trade 
        or business of manufacturing products in communities which have 
        suffered major manufacturing job losses or a major 
        manufacturing job loss event, as designated by the Secretary. 
        Paragraph (3) shall be applied separately with respect to the 
        increase provided under this paragraph.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to calendar years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
State of North Carolina v. Edward Lee York

No. COA16-170

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 31.02



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



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; and



(b) 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.



Date: March 29, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
ex10-15.htm


 


Exhibit 10.15








PROFIT CONSULTANTS INC.


6040 Upshaw, Ste. 105


Humble, Texas   77396


Tel: (281) 441-2538 














April 21, 2013







GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC


4150 St Catherine Street West


Suite 525


Montreal. QC H3Z 2Y5







Attention; Kenneth S. Adessky







RE: Convertible Promissory Note Dated April 25, 2011







Dear Sir,







As you are aware you executed a Convertible Promissory Note to our company for the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FIVE  THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN  00/100 DOLLARS ($155,287.00) which was to bear interest at 7.5% per annum and shall be due in twelve (12) months, which was in payment of our original loan of One Hundred  Twenty Five Thousand Dollars plus interest made on April 25, 2008.







Wheras the outstanding amount of the note with interest is currently ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX  THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY  00/100 DOLLARS ($126,750.00) being the capital plus interest less the portion of $55,287  which was sold by Profit Consultants Inc To Whydah Communicacion Inc. pursuant to a Purchase and Assignment Agreement, dated October 22, 2012.







As stated in the Convertible Promissory Note we hereby request repayment by way of conversion into common stock of your company. We believe the conversion should represent 9,750,000 common shares based on the repayment of the Loan as of today’s date of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY SIX  THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY  00/100 DOLLARS ($126,750.00).







We thank you for your co-operation and remain







Yours Truly,







PROFIT CONSULTANTS INC.


(s) Randy Renken







Per; Randy Renken




 


 


 



Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Milton A. Alpern, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable.]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.                                           /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: May 15, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Exhibit
32.2







CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Kenneth W. Bean, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Pediatric Prosthetics, Inc.





By:/s/ Kenneth W.
Bean


Kenneth
W. Bean


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting Officer)





February
19, 2008
# CE2004078EN.01043501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/435 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/435

---

(2004/C 78 E/0457)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2827/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Isolation units in hospitals

Subject:

Europe escaped the SARS virus. According to virologists, however, there is a significant risk of a renewed outbreak of the SARS virus before the end of the year. Biological terrorism can also never be ruled out. In order to prevent the spread of viruses such as SARS, work needs to be done on isolation units in hospitals. Now that the threat of the SARS virus appears to have subsided, however, no such work is being carried out in Member States.

Does the Commission agree that European hospitals need to have isolation units?

Does the Commission intend to take action in this area?

How many isolation chambers does the Commision believe hospitals in the EU should have available?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

The application of health protection measures, including those undertaken to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in hospitals, is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States.

The Commission has taken, in its areas of competence, a proactive role in responding to SARS and other viral diseases.

This concerns, in particular, co-ordination of surveillance and technical guidance for responding to SARS and other communicable diseases in a coherent way throughout the Union. Details of this work can be found on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index_en.html).

---
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    Exhibit 12-1

CKE Restaurants, Inc.
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
   Fiscal year                                                    2005          2004          2003           2002          2001
<S>                                                            <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>
Earnings before fixed charges
   Income (loss) before taxes, discontinued operations and
   cumulative effect of accounting change for goodwill           17,070       (48,013)       12,121        (85,308)      (214,938)
   Fixed charges                                                 68,692        70,404        69,481         81,510        103,843
                                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 85,762        22,391        81,602         (3,798)      (111,095)
                                                               ===================================================================

Fixed charges:
   Interest expense                                              36,748        39,962        39,924         53,906         70,509
   Interest component of rent expense                            31,944        30,442        29,557         27,604         33,334
                                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 68,692        70,404        69,481         81,510        103,843
                                                               ===================================================================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                  1.2            --           1.2             --             --
                                                               ===================================================================

Deficiency (if any)                                                           (48,013)                     (85,308)      (214,938)

Rent expense                                                     95,833        91,325        88,672         82,812        100,003

Interest component (1/3 of rent expense)                         31,944        30,442        29,557         27,604         33,334
</TABLE>
# C_2008128EN.01002802.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/28

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-255/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
# C_2010301EN.01002501.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)

(Case T-366/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE - Earlier national figurative marks Prestige - Partial refusal to register - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 301/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg and B. Klingberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Prestige Cosmetics SpA (Anzola Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Mugnoz, M. Andreolini and A. Parini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Prestige Cosmetics Srl and The Procter & Gamble Company

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 July 2007 (Case R 681/2006-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Court;

| 3. | Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prestige Cosmetics SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by The Procter & Gamble Company in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 4. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT






Board of Directors
Radica Games Limited


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-86960,  333-07000,  333-59737  and  333-61260 on Form S-8,  and  Registration
Statement  Nos.  333-07526  and 333-79005 on Form F-3 of Radica Games Limited of
our report dated February 12, 2001,  relating to the consolidated  balance sheet
of Radica Games Limited and its  subsidiaries  as of December 31, 2000,  and the
related  consolidated   statements  of  operations,   shareholders'  equity  and
comprehensive  income and cash flows for the years ended  December  31, 2000 and
1999,  appearing in this Annual  Report on Form 20-F of Radica Games Limited for
the year ended December 31, 2001.







/S/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

HONG KONG

June 11, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6234

VERNON J. MILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

B. WATSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00597-JCC-TCB)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 19, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon J. Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Vernon J. Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mills

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Mills’

motions for a certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED