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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3833 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3833

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify the Medicare 
    durable medical equipment face-to-face encounter documentation 
                              requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2014

Mr. McDermott introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modify the Medicare 
    durable medical equipment face-to-face encounter documentation 
                              requirement.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFYING MEDICARE DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FACE-TO-FACE 
              ENCOUNTER DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT.

    Section 1834(a)(11)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(a)(11)(B)(ii)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the physician documenting that''; and
            (2) by striking ``has had a face-to-face encounter'' and 
        inserting ``documenting such physician, physician assistant, 
        practitioner, or specialist has had a face-to-face encounter''.
                                 <all>
```
Foremost Insurance Company of Grand Rapids Michigan v. Charles Raines, Martha Raines, and Sherri Griggs

No. 112P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016.

Mr. Gene T. Leicht, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Raines, Charles, et al.

Mr. Joseph L. Nelson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Foremost Insurance Company Of Grand Rapids Michigan.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of March 2016 by Defendants (Charles Raines and Martha Raines) 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 9th of June 2016."
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

| i.           | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| ii.                         | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                November 29, 2006 |                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |                                                                                                                                                                       |
|                                    | /S/                MICHAEL E.                DRACE                     |
|                                    | Name:                Michael E. Drace                                                                                                                                      |
|                                    | Title:                Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                              |

----
STATE v. Mario Andrette MCNEILL

446A13-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for McNeill, Mario Andrette.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, William West, District Attorney, Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of April 2016 by Defendant to Amend the Record on Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
State of North Carolina v. Corey Demond Phillips

No. 68P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, Corey Demond Phillips, for Phillips, Corey Demond.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of March 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 18th of August 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136869 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: 136869 

 COA: 277153 

Oakland CC: 2006-212297-FC 

WILLIAM SCOTT MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 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. 

0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2010260EN.01001401.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/14

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Huta Buczek and Others v Commission

(Case T-440/07, T-465/07 and T-1/08) (1)

1

(No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 260/18

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Huta Buczek Sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer) (Case T-440/07); Emilian Salej, acting as liquidator of Technologie Buczek S.A. (Laryszów, Poland); Technologie Buczek S.A. (Sosnowiec) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer) (Case T-465/07); and Buczek Automotive Sp z o.o. (Sosnowiec) (represented by: T. Gackowski initially, then D. Szlachetko-Reiter and finally J. Jurczyk, lawyers) (Case T-1/08)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Niechciał initially, then M. Krasnodebska-Tomkiel and M. Rzotkiewicz, Agents) (Cases T-440/07 and T-1/08).

Intervener in support of the applicants

Re:

Re:

Applications for partial annulment of the Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the application in Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the application in Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej.

| 2. | The parties are to bear their own costs relating to Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are to bear their own costs relating to Case T-465/07, as brought by Emilian Salej.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trai Thien USA Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tran Viet Thang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: December 22, 2010 /s/ Nguyen Van Thong Nguyen Van Thong Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 14
 FENTURA FINANCIAL, INC.
CODE OF ETHICS
  1.
    
    I will act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of
interest in all personal and professional relationships.2.
    
    I will provide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant,
timely and understandable.3.
    
    I will comply with the rules and regulations of federal, state, and local
governments, and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.4.
    
    I will act in good faith, responsibly, and with due care. I will not
misrepresent material facts or allow my independent judgment to be subordinated or
otherwise compromised.5.
    
    I will respect and maintain the confidentiality of information reviewed or
acquired in carrying out my duties except when authorized or otherwise legally
obligated to disclose.6.
    
    I will share knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to the needs
of the Company.7.
    
    I will proactively practice and promote ethical behavior as a professional in
my role with the Company.8.
    
    I will not solicit for myself or for a third party anything of value from
anyone in return for any business, service or confidential information of the Company,
nor will I accept anything of value from anyone (except for my wages and as otherwise
permitted by law) in connection with the business of the Company, either before or
after a transaction is discussed or completed.9.
    
    I will comply with and adhere to all of the Companys policies and practices,
including those policies governing accounting and financial reporting practices and
corporate governance.10.
    
    I will respond honestly and candidly when dealing with the Companys
independent and internal auditors, regulators and attorneys.11.
    
    I will promptly disclose to an appropriate person or persons any transaction or
relationship that reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest,
and/or violations of this Code.
 (Signature)
    
    (Date)
State v. Andrew Young

417P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

William P. Hart, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Andrew Young, for Young, Andrew

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of November 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                           2,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,686
<PP&E>                                          15,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,171
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,239
<SALES>                                        109,122 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,122
<CGS>                                           73,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,092
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008197EN.01002301.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/23

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)

(Case T-79/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark POLARIS - Earlier Community word mark POLAR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 197/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Polaris Software Lab Ltd (Chennai, India)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2007 (Case R 658/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL and Polaris Software Lab Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2 

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2017 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark R. Harris, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 

| Date: August 3, 2017 | By:    | /S/ MARK R. HARRIS

     |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                 |   | Mark R. Harris                |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-96024) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1994 Formula
Stock Option Plan, and the 1995 Stock Option Plan of Video Update, Inc. of our
report dated August 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Video Update, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended April 30, 2000.


                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 6, 2000
FARKAS v. Van LINDEN.

No. S15A0859.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 5, 2015.

Leonard Farkas, Albany, for appellant.

Alex Joshua Kaplan, Albany, for appellee.

**Opinion**

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Judgment affirmed.*

All the Justices concur.
exhibit10_2.htm


Exhibit 10.2


ARTHUR LOMAX


 


July 16, 2014


 


PokerTek, Inc.


1150 Crews Road, Suite F


Matthews, NC 28105


Attention: Joseph J. Lahti


Chairman of the Board




 


Re: Second Amended and Restated 9% Secured Promissory Note due December 31, 2016, made by PokerTek, Inc. and held by Arthur Lomax dated April 28, 2014 (the “Note”)


 


Dear Mr. Lahti,


 


This will confirm my agreement to defer all payments due to me pursuant to the Note (the “Deferral Amount”) for the period commencing June 1, 2014 through and including December 31, 2014.


 


The Deferral Amount will be payable to me upon the earlier of: (i) the closing of either (a) the Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement dated April 29, 2014 by and among Multimedia Games, Inc. et al., and PokerTek, Inc. (the “Merger Agreement”), or (b) the closing of a transaction in connection with a “Superior Proposal” (as defined in the Merger Agreement); or (ii) January 31, 2015.


 


All other terms and conditions of the Note shall remain unchanged.


 



	  	
Sincerely,


	  	
/s/ Arthur Lomax


	  	
Arthur Lomax
# C_2011160EN.01001501.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Far Eastern New Century v Council

(Case T-167/07) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of polyethylene terephthalate originating in Taiwan - Determination of the dumping margin - Asymmetrical method of calculation - Export pricing pattern differing according to purchasers and time periods - Full degree of dumping margin cannot be reflected by symmetrical methods of calculation - Duty to state reasons)

2011/C 160/17

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Far Eastern New Century Corp., formerly Far Eastern Textile Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, H. van Vliet and K. Talabér-Ritz and, subsequently, H. van Vliet and M. França, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Far Eastern New Century Corp. to bear its own costs, together with those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Far Eastern New Century Corp. to bear its own costs, together with those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Matthew Chad Beaver

No. 169P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Beaver, Matthew Chad.

Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of May 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:

*507"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2009113EN.01003202.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

(Case T-332/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Electricity - Preferential tariff - Decision initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Admissibility - Notion of State aid - New aid or existing aid - Advantage - Statement of reasons - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)

2009/C 113/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold, F. Salerno and T. Graf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan, E. Righini and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03, notified to the Italian Republic by letter of 19 July 2006, initiating the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, concerning State aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06) — Preferential electricity tariff to energy intensive industries in Italy, in so far as that decision relates to the electricity tariffs applicable to the two primary aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---