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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 762 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 762

       To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2007

 Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DEHYDROEPIANDROSTERONE.

    Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
802(41)(A)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
        ``corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone'' and inserting 
        ``and corticosteroids'';
            (2) by redesignating clauses (x) through (xlx) as clauses 
        (xi) through (xlxi), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after clause (ix) the following:
            ``(x) dehydroepiandrosterone (androst-5-en-3b-ol-17-
        one);''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.10****CONSENT OF R. BRYSON**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the followingreport(s) and to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including, as anexpert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The technical report dated March 10, 2009, entitled “PeñasquitoProject Technical Report” (the “Peñasquito Report”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the Peñasquito Report, the PeñasquitoProject and the Los Filos Mine, and the properties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010         /s/ Robert H. Bryson Name: Robert H. Bryson, MMSA.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

June 23, 2015

Hon. Jack Pulcher
105th District Court (Kleberg Co.)

P.O. Box 312

Kingsville, TX 78364

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00237

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 12

- CRF

- 0137
Style: The State of Texas v. Isaac Sastaita

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. John T. Hubert (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Hon. Jaime E. Carrillo (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Hon. Jennifer Whittington (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Ms. Kimberly Grigg (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
Hon. Vincent Gonzalez (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
**Exhibit      32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                July 8, 2008 | By:                                                                                                                     | */s/*                Jonathan Leinwand |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                              | Jonathan                Leinwand                                                                                                  |
|                              | Chief                Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer and Principal Financial                Officer) |

----
State v. Dakota Covington

127P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Dakota Covington, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for the State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of April 2016 by Defendant in the Alternative for Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 – Spain v Commission**

**(Case T-281/06)**

EAGGF – Guarantee Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Compensatory aid for banana producers – Irregularities in quality controls – Type of financial correction applied – Proportionality

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (Council Regulation No 729/70, Art. 5(2)(c), and No 1258/1999, Art. 7(4)) (see
paras 42-43, 65-66, 71)*

2.                     *Acts of the institutions – Regulations –**Regulation laying down specific control measures (see para. 48)*

3.                     *Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – EAGGF financing (Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 12(1), and No 1258/1999, Art.
8(1); Commission Regulation No 2257/94 and No 2898/95, Art. 7(3)) (see para. 53)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | PARTIAL ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12) in so far as it provides for a financial correction applicable to expenses declared by the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to compensatory aid for banana producers for the financial years 2002 and 2003. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
Patrick J. HENDERSON, Co-Trustee of the Walton Burton James, Sr. Testamentary Trust (as Amended), Plaintiff, v. GARCIA MOTORRAD, LLC, d/b/a Ducati Raleigh; and Next Level Customs, LLC, Defendants, v. Garcia Motorrad, LLC, d/b/a Ducati Raleigh, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Muse M. James and Walton James, Jr., Third-Party Defendants.

No. COA15-1250.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part, and Remanded.
QUALITY BUILT HOMES INCORPORATED and Stafford Land Company, Inc. v. TOWN OF CARTHAGE.

No. 315PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James E. Scarbrough, Concord, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

James R. Demay, Concord, for Quality Built Homes Incorporated, et al.

Susan K. Burkhart, Raleigh, for Town of Carthage.

Jennifer Welch, Raleigh.

James M. Carpenter, General Counsel, for N.C. Home Builders Association, Inc.

John T. Benjamin, Jr., Raleigh, for Leading Builders of America.

William E. Hubbard, Raleigh, for Leading Builders of America.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

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

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 26, 2008

Ms. Susan Desmarais Bonnen

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Post Office Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Philip E. McCleery

Sheehy Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C.

510 N. Valley Mills Dr., Suite 500

Waco, TX 76710

RE:Case Number:  07-0548

Court of Appeals Number:  10-06-00136-CV

Trial Court Number:  20040931CV1

Style:THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

DAWMAR PARTNERS, LTD., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND HOWARD WAYNE GRUETZNER AND BEVERLY ANN GRUETZNER (A/K/A BEVERLY G. SHAW), CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARTHA LILLIAN ATTAWAY GRUETZNER (A/K/A MARTHA LILLIAN ATTAWAY GRUETSNER)

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0548Page 1**
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3943 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3943

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
  above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2014

 Mr. Grayson 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 for one year the 
  above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED TUITION 
              AND RELATED EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 222 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2013'' and 
inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004078EN.01023401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/234 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/234

---

(2004/C 78 E/0236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 October 2003)

Subject:   Ban on dangerous dog breeds

Subject:

Unfortunately, my previous questions concerning a ban on dangerous dogs have had no effect. It is true that one or two Member States, Italy and Austria for example, have already taken measures against violent and aggressive dogs by making muzzles compulsory in public places, such as bus stops and parks, and introducing training schools for puppies, but these measures do not go far enough. Recently, we have again been confronted with terrible headlines about pitbulls attacking children and adults. It is not enough that individual Member States or regions tackle the behaviour of some breeds of dog. There must be a European directive banning dangerous dog breeds.

How many more people need to be bitten to death or mutilated in the Commission's opinion?

How much longer must we wait before action is finally taken at Community level?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

(16 December 2003)

The legal basis for Community action in the area of human health protection is Article 152 of the EC Treaty. The first paragraph of this article stipulates that where Community action complements national policies, the principle of subsidiarity applies. According to this principle, which is set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action only where the objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved by the Community.

In the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission does not have a sufficiently sound and conclusive scientific basis to propose European legislation on this subject itself, rather than leaving it to the Member States.

It is up to the Member States to adopt the necessary measures at national level in order to prevent accidents of this kind.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00623-CR

Matthew SERNA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-05-0186-CRA

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Leticia Escamilla’s notification of later record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter’s 

record is due no later than January 2, 2019. No Further Extensions.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of December, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
FRANKS v. COBBLESTONE HOA OF CLAYTON, INC.

376A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 13, 2016

J. Matthew Waters, Attorney at Law, Hope Derby Carmichael, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Cobblestone HOA of Clayton, Inc.

Vincent Franks, Jr., For Franks, Vincent (Jr.)

Dennis Draughon.

Tatita Sanchez.

Robert A. Spence, Jr., Attorney at Law, Smithfield.

Robert Sain.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of October 2016 by Defendant to Consolidate Appeals:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of October 2016."
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21-1


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT:


 DiviCom Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

 DiviCom Limited (organized under the laws of Barbados), a subsidiary of
    DiviCom Inc.

 C-Cube U.S. Inc. (incorporated in Delaware)

 C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd. (organized under the laws of
    Bermuda)

 C-Cube International Limited (organized under the laws of the Hong Kong
    Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China), a
    subsidiary of C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd.

 DiviCom Europe SAS (organized under the laws of France), a subsidiary of
    C-Cube Microsystems International Ltd.

 C-Cube Microsystems (Asia Pacific) Limited (organized under the laws of the
    Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China)

 C-Cube Japan, Inc. (organized under the laws of Japan)

*Media Computer Technologies, Inc. (incorporated in California)



*Discontinued operation
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                       RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. SUBSIDIARIES



1.       RCG Mississippi, Inc.
2.       Renal Care Group of the Midwest, Inc.
3.       Renal Care Group Texas, Inc.
4.       D.M.N. of Indiana Corporation
5.       RCG University Division, Inc.
6.       Renal Care Group of the Southeast, Inc.
7.       Renal Care Group East, Inc.
8.       RenalWest, Inc.
9.       RenalWest, L.C.
10.      Northeast Alabama Kidney Center, Inc.
11.      Dialysis Management Corporation
12.      RCG PA Merger Corporation
13.      RCG Indiana, LLC
14.      RenaLab, Inc.
15.      RCG Finance, Inc.
16.      RCG Tennessee, LLC
17.      RCG Texas, LLC
18.      RCG Ft. Wayne, LLC
19.      Renal Care Group, LP
20.      Renal Care Group Management, LP
21.      RenalPartners, Inc.
22.      RenalNet, Inc.
23.      RenalNet Florida, Inc.
24.      R.C.G. Supply Company
25.      RCG Brandon, LLC
26.      RCG Pikeville, LLC
27.      RCG Southaven, LLC
28.      Southern Ocean County Dialysis Clinic, LLC
29.      Renal Institute of Central Jersey, LLC
30.      Saint Louis Renal Care, LLC
31.      Saint Louis Supply Company, LLC
32.      Ohio Renal Care Group, LLC
33.      Elyria Renal Care, LLC
34.      Integrated Wound Care Services, Inc.
35.      STAT Dialysis Corporation
36.      Brownsville Kidney, LP
37.      El Paso Kidney Center, LP
38.      Angleton Dialysis, Inc.
39.      Brazoria Kidney Center, Inc.
40.      Fondren Kidney Center, Inc.
41.      Wharton Dialysis, Inc.
42.      Stuttgart Dialysis, Inc.
43.      KDCO, Inc.
44.      Little Rock Dialysis, Inc.
45.      Jefferson County Dialysis, Inc.
46.      Lawton Dialysis, Inc.
47.      Northwest Dialysis, Inc.
48.      Four State Regional Dialysis Center, Inc.
49.      Fort Scott Dialysis Center, Inc.
50.      Miami Regional Dialysis Center, Inc.
51.      RCG/Saint Luke's, LLC
52.      Renal Care Group Michigan, Inc.
53.      RCG of Martin, LLC
54.      TCMC Dialysis Center, LLC
55.      Renal Care Group of the Northwest, Inc.
56.      Pacific Northwest Renal Services, LLC
57.      Michigan Home Dialysis Center, Inc.
58.      Sumner Regional Dialysis Center, LLC
59.      RCG Columbus, LLC
60.      Summit Renal Care, LLC
61.      RenalNet Arizona, Inc.
62.      Dialysis Centers of America, Inc.
63.      Renal Care Group Alaska, Inc.
Ronald G. KEATON, Jr., Employee, Plaintiff, v. ERMC III, Employer, and New Hampshire Insurance Company, Carrier (Carl Warren & Company, Third-Party Administrator), Defendants.

No. COA15-1108.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# CE2004078EN.01052301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/523 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/523

---

(2004/C 78 E/0544)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3329/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject:   Eurobarometer poll according to which Israel is the greatest threat to world peace

Subject:

According to the Eurobarometer poll commissioned by the Commission, EU citizens consider Israel to be the country that presents the greatest threat to world peace.

Does the Commission know what the criteria were for the wording of the questions?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that in the answers offered to those questioned two democratic countries, the United States and Israel, were put on the same level as dictatorships and theocratic regimes that deny freedom?

What steps will the Commission and its President Romano Prodi take to prevent the European institutions from legitimising thoughtless initiatives which may aggravate tension in Europe and the Middle East?

What steps will the Commission take to prevent leaks of information on such sensitive subjects, as in the case of the findings of the Eurobarometer poll published in ‘EL País’?

Does the Commission not consider that Europe, mindful of the tragedy of the Holocaust, should take on greater responsibility for the quest for peace in the Middle East?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question P-3334/03 by Ms Muscardini (1).

1

---

(1)  See page 263.

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 of Applix, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 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, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                           /s/ Milton A. Alpern  Date: August 14, 2006 Milton A. Alpern   Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   
32
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136712 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: 136712 

 COA: 284734 

Kent CC: 07-005956-FH 

ROBERT JOSEPH GIBISAS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2008 order 

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. 

t0828 

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