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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3923 

To amend the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to 

expand the authority of governmental social service agencies with child 

protection responsibilities to access the national crime information databases. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2014 

Ms. BASS (for herself, Ms. CHU, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Mr. COOK, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, and Mr. LANGEVIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006 to expand the authority of governmental 

social service agencies with child protection responsibilities to access the national crime information databases. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3923 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY OF GOVERN2 MENTAL SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES WITH 

3 CHILD PROTECTION RESPONSIBILITIES TO 

4 ACCESS THE NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION 

5 DATABASES. 

6 Section 151(a)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child Protec7 tion and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16961(a)(2)) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘, to be used by such agencies only 

9 in investigating or responding to reports of child abuse, 

10 neglect, or exploitation’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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









In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B. Alva Schoomer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ B. Alva Schoomer

B. Alva Schoomer

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

September 13, 2005
STATE of North Carolina v. Marlon E. MENDOZA-MEJIA.

No. 420P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mendoza-Mejia, Marlon E.

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

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 18th of December 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of January 2016 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Scil proteins v OHIM – Indena (affilene)**

**(Case T-87/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark affilene – Earlier Community word mark AFFILIN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity between products – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative ground for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 40-42, 45-52)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Scil proteins GmbH and Indena SpA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Indena SpA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark affilene for goods in Class 1 – Application No 2751931 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Scil proteins GmbH |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Community word mark AFFILIN for goods in Classes 1 and 5 – Registration No 2583391 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Opposition partially upheld |

**Operative part**

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 23 January 2007 (Case R 10/2006-2) in so far as it dismisses the opposition with respect to the following goods: ‘extracts of medicinal plants for use in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries, not for diagnostic purposes’; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
Tawoos BAZARGANI, MD v. Dr. David Morris MARKS, Duke University Hospital, Duke University, and Infectious Disease Control Association

No. 388P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Tawoos Bazargani M.D., for Bazargani, Tawoos (MD).

Kelly Street Brown, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Raleigh Infectious Diseases Associates, P.A.

Katherine Hilkey-Boyatt, Attorney at Law, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Marks, David Morris (Dr.), et al.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of October 2016 by Plaintiff for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 17th of October 2016 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N. C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of October 2016 by Plaintiff to Supplement Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
# C_2008064EN.01006402.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/64

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 — Kerelov v Commission

(Case F-110/07)

(Officials - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

(2008/C 64/105)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kerelov, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Re:

Application for the annulment of EPSO's decision of 7 February 2007 not to transmit to the applicant information and documents relating to a competition and for compensation for the damage he has suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    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
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE

606A05-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 10, 2016

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 10th of November 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of November 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 21st day of November 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                             931
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,754
<PP&E>                                          17,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,139
<BONDS>                                         44,077
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,764
<SALES>                                         29,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,476
<CGS>                                           20,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                       536
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                818
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       818
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        






</TABLE>
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0593n.06

Filed: October 2, 2008

Case No. 05-3886

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JEFF WINKELMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. The parents of an autistic child sued their

local school district, alleging that the school district had failed to provide a “free appropriate public

education” (FAPE) in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20

U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., and seeking remuneration for doing so themselves, as well as a court order

directing the school district to do so in the future. Both parties moved for judgment on the

administrative record and the district court ruled for the school district. The parents appealed.

The district court had allowed the parents to proceed pro se, but when the case reached this

court on appeal, we ordered the parents to obtain counsel, lest their appeal be dismissed. Instead,

they petitioned the SupremeCourtfor certiorari, which the Court granted. Ultimately, the Court held

that parents have rights under IDEA independent of the rights of their child, the parents’ rights

encompass the child’s right to a FAPE, and the parents may proceed pro se on their own independent

rights. On remand, we are again presented with the merits questions.
2

The Winkelmans first argue that the district court erred by placing the burden of proof on

them, rather than on the school district. Next, they argue that the district court erred by finding that

the school district had provided the FAPE with regard to music therapy, occupational therapy, and

speech therapy. Finally, they contend that the district court erred by approving the hearing officer’s

decision to disregard the Winkelmans’ expert-witness’s testimony as not credible.

After carefully reviewing the record, the law, and the arguments presented in the appellate

briefs, we conclude that each of the Winkelmans’ assignments of error is without merit, and that the

district court’s opinion, Winkelman v. Parma Cty. Sch. Dist., 411 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 2005),

correctly sets out the applicable law and correctly applies that law to the facts in the record. The

issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the

reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
           (PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

      I, Vicki Hladik, certify that:

In connection with the Annual Report of Horizon Financial Services Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Vicki Hladik,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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.

A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required  by  Section  906,  has been  provided  to Horizon  Financial  Services
Corporation and will be retained by Horizon Financial  Services  Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

Date: September 28, 2004
      ------------------


                                                      /s/ Vicki Hladik
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


                                       57
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 March 2008 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐89/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Posts in the public service – Posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on board all ships flying the flag of a Member State – Nationality requirement

1.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Protection of public policy, public security and public health (Art. 39(3)
EC) (see paras 11-12, operative part)*

2.                     *Freedom of movement for persons – Exceptions – Posts in the public service – Meaning (Art. 39(4) EC) (see paras 14, 18, operative
part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 39(4) EC – Freedom of movement for workers – Exercise of public power – Requirement of French nationality for the pursuit of employment as master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag – Incompatible with Community law. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by maintaining in its legislation a requirement of French nationality for access to the posts of master (captain) and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the French flag, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
State v. Rickey Nelson Spencer

444P08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Rickey Nelson Spencer, for Spencer, Rickey Nelson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of September 2016 by Defendant for Order to Exhaust Defendant Arguments:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum Act to 

extend the termination date. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4120 EH

1 SECTION 1. NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MUSEUM ACT 

2 TERMINATION DATE EXTENDED. 

3 Section 4(f) of the National Law Enforcement Mu4 seum Act (Public Law 106–492) is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘13 years’’ and inserting ‘‘16 years’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The provisions of this Act shall take effect as if this 

8 Act were enacted on November 8, 2013. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

AN ACT 

To amend the National Law Enforcement Museum 

Act to extend the termination date.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – GretagMacbeth v OHIM (Combination of 24 coloured
squares)**

**(Case T-400/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community colour mark – Combination of 24 coloured squares – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 39, 41-43, 50, 53-55)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 30/2007-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a colour sign composed of 24 coloured squares. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | GretagMacbeth LLC |
| Community trade mark sought: | Mark consisting of a combination of 24 coloured squares for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 – Application No 4634572 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders GretagMacbeth LLC to pay the costs. |
1 The HONORABLE ALFRED T. GOODWIN, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-1- No. 95-2637

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri TIMOTHY ANDRE CARTER, * * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Submitted: December 12, 1995 Filed: January 9, 1996

Before MAGILL, GOODWIN 1 , and MURPHY, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: Timothy H. Carter was convicted by a jury of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(a). He appeals, contending that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear evidence, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404 (b), of other drug transactions between Carter and the government witness. We have carefully examined the trial2 Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2- record and are satisfied that the district court 2 committed no error in ruling upon the admissibility of the challenged evidence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 15, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136786 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

NANCY ANNE JOYCE,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136786 

 COA: 281175 

Oakland CC: 2005-713656-DO 

DENNIS ALLAN JOYCE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

1008 

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. 

October 15, 2008 

 Clerk
1242.

#### Hercules Manufacturing Company *v.*Robinson.

Complaint, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. April 28, 1908.

Submitted July 15,

Decided October 26, 1908.

*W. G. Harrison,*for plaintiff.

*J. W. & Watts Powell,*for defendant.

Powell, J.

This case involves solely a question of fact. The finding of’ the jury, with the approval of the trial judge, has conclusively settled that, and this court has no jurisdiction to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 3, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136283 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BEN HANSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136283 

 COA: 278074 

Ingham CC: 06-001033-CZ

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 13, 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. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). 

I would reverse in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case 

to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing concerning the appropriate amount of 

sanctions with respect to Counts I and II only. In my judgment, sanctions for Count III 

were inappropriate because that count was not barred by the statute of limitations and 

plaintiff’s legal position on this count was not “devoid of arguable legal merit.” MCL 

600.2591(3)(a)(iii). 

YOUNG, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J. 

p0930 

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. 

October 3, 2008 

Clerk