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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3682 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3682

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the community based outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in Mankato, Minnesota, as 
       the ``Lyle C. Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LYLE C. PEARSON COMMUNITY BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC.
    (a) Designation.--The community based outpatient clinic of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs located at 1961 Premier Drive in 
Mankato, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lyle C. 
Pearson Community Based Outpatient Clinic''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Candie L. WILLOUGHBY and Jerome Willoughby, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY; Johnston Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Johnston Health; Johnston Memorial Hospital Authority d/b/a Johnston Medical Center -Smithfield, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Steris Corporation and General Electric Company, Third-Party Defendants.

Nos. COA15-832 COA15-833 COA15-834.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2009256EN.01000401.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany)) — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(Case C-489/07) (1)

1

(Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Exercise by the consumer of the right of withdrawal - Compensation for use to be paid to the seller)

2009/C 256/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Applicant:

Defendant: Firma Stefan Krüger

Defendant

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Lahr — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and (2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — Exercise of the right to revoke by the consumer — Compensation for use to be paid to the seller

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of the second sentence of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which provides in general that, in the case of withdrawal by a consumer within the withdrawal period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use of the consumer goods acquired under a distance contract.

However, those provisions do not prevent the consumer from being required to pay compensation for the use of the goods in the case where he has made use of those goods in a manner incompatible with the principles of civil law, such as those of good faith or unjust enrichment, on condition that the purpose of that directive and, in particular, the functionality and efficacy of the right of withdrawal are not adversely affected, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             719
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     40,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,976
<PP&E>                                          48,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            70
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,410
<SALES>                                        155,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,058
<CGS>                                           84,866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,946
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    410
<INCOME-TAX>                                       159
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009282EN.01000401.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union

(Case C-370/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Establishment of the positions to be adopted on behalf of the Community in a body established by a convention - Obligation to state reasons - Reference to the legal basis - 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES))

2009/C 282/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and C. Zadra, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Jacqué, F. Florindo Gijón and K. Michoel, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and I. Rao, Agents, and D. Wyatt QC)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Council Decision of 24 May 2007 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Community with regard to certain proposals submitted to the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Hague, Netherlands, 3-15 June 2007 — Choice of legal basis

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 24 May 2007 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Community with regard to certain proposals submitted at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), The Hague (Netherlands), 3 to 15 June 2007. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 24 May 2007 establishing the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Community with regard to certain proposals submitted at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), The Hague (Netherlands), 3 to 15 June 2007.

th

| 2. | Maintains in force the effects of the annulled decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Maintains in force the effects of the annulled decision.

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

| 4. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.09.2007.

1

---
# C_2009090EN.01002602.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission

(Case T-346/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment and for damages - Directive 98/37/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘CE’ marking - Hazards to the safety of persons - National prohibition measure - Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified - Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 90/42

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T. Romolotti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses and, second, application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of that opinion

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

| 2. | The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 3. | The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the interim proceedings. As to the remainder, the Commission and Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) are ordered to bear half of the costs each. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the interim proceedings. As to the remainder, the Commission and Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) are ordered to bear half of the costs each.

| 4. | The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
| NAME                                                   |   | STATE                OF INCORPORATION |   | NAME                UNDER WHICH SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Xechem,                Inc.                            |   | Illinois                              |   | Same                                                     |
| Xechem                Laboratories, Inc.               |   | New                Jersey             |   | Same                                                     |
| XetaPharm,                Inc.                         |   | New                Jersey             |   | Same                                                     |
| Xechem                (India) Pvt., Ltd.               |   | Republic                of India      |   | Same                                                     |
| Xechem                Pharmaceuticals Nigeria, Limited |   | Republic                of Nigeria    |   | Same                                                     |
| Xechem                U.K., Ltd.                       |   | United                Kingdom         |   | Same                                                     |

----
# CE2004065EN.01006502.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/65

---

(2004/C 65 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1215/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Massa

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Massa, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 801 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 801

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, 
          as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse bordered by O Street, P Street, Tulare 
Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert E. Coyle 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate April 10, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 801

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, 
          as the ``Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse''.
```
**Exhibit 99.28****CONSENT OF G. WATTS**     I, Gordon Watts, P.Eng., Senior Associate Mineral Economist of Watts, Griffis and McOuatLimited hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following document, which isbeing filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission: 1. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the San Dimas Mines,and the properties described therein.Date: March 25, 2008         /s/ Gordon Watts   Name:  Gordon Watts   Title:  Senior Associate Mineral Economist
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc.Amended and Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-44725),pertaining to the PRT Group Inc. 401(k) Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-95247), andpertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Form S-3 related to the shares of commonstock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Senior Participating RedeemablePreferred Stock and related warrants (Form S-3 No. 333-36468) of our reportdated March 19, 2004, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of enherent,Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2003, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements, as amended, included in this Form 10-K/A.

 

 

Hartford, Connecticut

April 8, 2004

 

----
# C_2009113EN.01000802.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-458/07) (1)

1

(Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Telecommunications - Directive 2002/22/EC - Universal service - Obligation to make available to end-users a comprehensive directory and telephone directory enquiry service)

2009/C 113/15

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, and L. Morais, Advogado)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure by Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Failure to include certain subscribers in the universal directory

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(1) and (2) and Article 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
exh10_2.htm


 











Exhibit 10.2


 


 


 


AMENDMENT TO LOAN SALE AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO LOAN SALE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of August 23, 2010, by and between BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF GMAC COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2003-C3 (“Seller”), and RESOURCE REAL ESTATE OPPORTUNITY OP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Purchaser”).


 


R E C I T A L S


 


A.           Seller and Purchaser have entered into that certain Loan Sale Agreement dated as of July 30, 2010 (the “Agreement”), for the sale of that certain Loan as defined in the Agreement.


 


B.           Seller and Purchaser desire to amend the Agreement as more particularly set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser agree as follows:


 


1.           Section 1.16.  Section 1.16 of the Agreement is hereby amended to fill in the blank with the date “____________.”


 


2.           Section 3.7.  Section 3.7 of the Agreement is hereby amended to replace the date August 23, 2010 with the date “August 26, 10.”


 


3.           Exhibit D.  Exhibit D to the Agreement which was left blank is now replace with the Exhibit D attached hereto.


 


4.           Effect of Modification.  The Agreement continues in full force and effect, unmodified except as expressly modified by the provisions hereof.


 


5.           Counterparts; Facsimiles and Electronic Mail.  This Amendment may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts and by facsimile or electronic mail, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 







-  -




  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have each executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


SELLER:


 


Bank of America, N.A. as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee for the Registered Holders of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C3








	
  

	
By:

	
CWCapital Asset Management LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, solely in its capacity as Special Servicer







 







By:           /s/ Thomas Dwyer                            


Name:      Thomas Dwyer                                  


Title:        __________________________






















PURCHASER:







Resource Real Estate Opportunity OP, LP,


a Delaware limited partnership







By:           Resource Real Estate Opportunity


REIT, Inc., its general partner












By:           /s/ Shelle Weisbaum                      


Name:      Shelle Weisbaum                           


Title:        CLO                                                  







 


- 2 -
STATE of North Carolina v. Kadeem KIRK, Defendant.

No. COA15-83.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Joseph Lee GAY, Individually and on Behalf of all Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES BANK, Defendant.

No. COA15-1103.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.