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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 428 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 428

     To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the cost 
 differences between providing school meals and supplements in each of 
the territories of the United States and the 50 States and the District 
                  of Columbia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2013

  Mr. Sablan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Secretary of Agriculture to report on the cost 
 differences between providing school meals and supplements in each of 
the territories of the United States and the 50 States and the District 
                  of Columbia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``School Meals Reimbursement Rates 
Comparison Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REPORT.

    Not later than April 1, 2014, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
prepare and submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry of the Senate a report on--
            (1) the cost differences between--
                    (A) providing meals and supplements under the 
                Richard B. Russell National School Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 
                et seq.) and section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
                1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) in Guam, American Samoa, Puerto 
                Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the 
                Northern Mariana Islands, respectively; and
                    (B) the average cost of providing meals and 
                supplements under such provisions of law in the 50 
                States and the District of Columbia; and
            (2) the relation of the cost differences determined under 
        paragraph (1) to the national average payment rates for meals 
        and supplements prescribed under sections 4, 11, 13, and 17 of 
        the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
        1753, 1759a, 1761, 1766) and section 4(b) of the Child 
        Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773(b)).
                                 <all>
```
Christian M. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. Holli C. LOPEZ, Defendant.

No. COA17-10

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 17, 2017

Dismiss.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1288

In re: TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN)

Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrell Rogers, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrell Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus on two 

grounds. First, Rogers appears to allege undue delay by the 

district court in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and 

second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district to act. We conclude that the 

present record does not reveal undue delay in the district 

court.

Next, Rogers also requests that this court modify or 

vacate the district court’s order denying his first § 2255 

motion. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought, In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 

138 (4th Cir. 1988), and may not be used as a substitute for 

appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th 

Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Rogers is not available by way 

of mandamus. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4454 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4454

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain 
  rules regarding basis adjustments to stock of S corporations making 
                 charitable contributions of property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2014

Mr. Reichert (for himself and Mr. Kind) 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 make permanent certain 
  rules regarding basis adjustments to stock of S corporations making 
                 charitable contributions of property.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RULE REGARDING BASIS ADJUSTMENT TO STOCK OF S 
              CORPORATIONS MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Section 1367(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to contributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
2013.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.2**
**Note Regarding Consent of Arthur AndersenLLP.**
     After reasonable efforts, we have been unable toobtain Arthur Andersen’s consent to the incorporation byreference of their report for our fiscal year endedJune 30, 2001 into our previously filed registrationstatements under the Securities Act of 1933, and we have notfiled that consent with this Annual Report on Form 10-K inreliance upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act. Becausewe have not been able to obtain Arthur Andersen’s consent,you may not be able to recover against Arthur Andersen underSection 11 of the Securities Act for any untrue statementsof a material fact contained in our financial statements auditedby Arthur Andersen or any omission to state a material factrequired to be stated therein.
89
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Strasbaugh (the “Company”) for
the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify
in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their
knowledge:




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 Company.






Date:  March
      31, 2010
            By:
            /s/ CHUCK
      SCHILLINGSChuck
      SchillingsChief
      Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)Date:  March
      31, 2010
            By:
            /s/ RICHARD
      NANCERichard
      Nance
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (principal
      financial officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
WASCO LLC v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

No. 164P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

*685Mr. David Guidry, Attorney at Law, Mr. Adam G. Sowatzka, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Mr. Cory Hohnbaum, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mr. Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for WASCO LLC.

Mr. Daniel Hirschman, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Environment And Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of May 2017 by Petitioner 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 1st of November 2017."
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, State of California, Intervenor, v. Raphyal CRAWFORD, aka Aarmyl Crawford, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50633.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed: Sept. 2, 2003.

David P. Curnow, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sheri Walker Hobson, USSD-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Doris A Calandra, District Atty. Gen., Attorney General’s Office, Sacramento, CA, Lee E. Seale, Attorney General’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Intervenor.

Michael J. McCabe, Law Offices of Michael McCabe, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

ORDER

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused regular active judges of this court, it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C SECTION 1350)



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 (the
Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Logility, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be
relied upon for any other purpose.



|                            |  |  |  |                                             
|--------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                            |  | 
|This 5thday of August, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    J. MICHAEL
EDENFIELD                 
|                            |  |  |  | J. Michael Edenfield Chief Executive Officer



The undersigned, as
the Chief Financial Officer of Logility, Inc., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Logility, Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.



|                            |  |  |  |                                           
|--------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|                            |  | 
|This 5thday of August, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/    VINCENT C.
KLINGES                 
|                            |  |  |  | Vincent C. Klinges Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 Logility, Inc. and will be retained by Logility, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The information in this Exhibit 32.1 shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
#### Hiram BEAMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-1792.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Aan R. Dakan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court in this criminal case imposed victim injury points for sexual contact after the jury returned a verdict of guilty of attempted lewd or lascivious battery. As the appellant argues and the state acknowledges, these victim injury points should not have been scored. *See Grant v. State,*783 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).. Accordingly, the appellant’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded for resentencing under a corrected scoresheet.

ERVIN, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., Concur.
#### Ann Berner, Respondent, v 2061 A Bartow Food Corp., Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 820]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered July 10, 2000, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although defendant maintains that the complaint should be dismissed because it had no notice of the slippery condition on its premises which allegedly caused plaintiff to lose her footing and sustain injury, the record contains evidence sufficient to permit a fact-finder to infer that the slippery condition was created by one of defendant’s employees as he sprayed vegetables, and actual notice will be presumed where the defendant created the hazardous condition *(see, Panagakos v Greek Archdiocese,*213 AD2d 336). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Williams, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
Consent of Independent Auditor








We hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Silver Standard Resources Inc. (“Silver Standard”) for the year ended December 31, 2016, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of our report dated February 23, 2017, relating to the consolidated financial statements, comprising the consolidated statements of financial position as at December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 and the consolidated statements of Income (loss), comprehensive Income (loss), changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015; and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report.


We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-185498, 333-196116 and 333-198092) of Silver Standard of our report dated February 23, 2017 referred to above.


signed “PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP”


Chartered Professional Accountants


Vancouver, BC


March 22, 2017




































































PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers Place, 250 Howe Street, Suite 1400, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 3S7


T: +1 604 806 7000, F: +1 604 806 7806, www.pwc.com/ca


“PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Jurisdiction of       Other Names under which
Subsidiary                                Incorporation         Subsidiary does Business
<S>                                       <C>                   <C>
Ahab Investment Company                   Delaware              N/A

Ahab International Investment Co.         Delaware              N/A

Astro Air Coils, Inc.                     Pennsylvania          N/A

Astro Air UK, Ltd.                        Pennsylvania          N/A

DWZM, Inc.                                Pennsylvania          N/A

GBMC, Inc.                                Kansas                N/A

The Landover Company                      Pennsylvania          Dura-Bond Bearing Co.

M.H. Rhodes Company                       Delaware              N/A

Motor Products - Ohio Corporation         Delaware              N/A

Motor Products - Owosso Corporation       Delaware              N/A

Owosso Motor Group, Inc.                  Pennsylvania          N/A

Snowmax Incorporated                      Pennsylvania          N/A

Sooner Trailer Manufacturing Co.          Delaware              N/A

Statute Electric, Inc.                    New York              N/A

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19698]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the 
week of October 3, 2005:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, October 6, 2005 at 2:30 
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), 
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
October 6, 2005 will be:

Formal orders of private investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; and
Adjudicatory matters.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-19698 Filed 9-28-05; 11:40 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
# C_2012399EN.01002102.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/21

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Harman International Industries, Inc. v OHIM — Becker (Barbara Becker)

(Case T-212/07 REV) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 399/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Harman International Industries, Inc. (Northridge, California, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Barbara Becker (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harman International Industries, Inc. and Barbara Becker.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and to each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Glenwood Earl DOWNEY

No. 85A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 9

- BG

- 449

IN RE STEWART L. GITLER

201 9 D DN 1 26

A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 387303

BEFORE: Glickman and Beckwith

, Associate Judge s , and Steadman, Senior Judge

.

O R D E R (FILED

— June 13, 2019)

On consideration of the certified order suspending respondent ’s right to practice law in the state of Virginia for a period of 90 days by consent; this court’s May 31, 2019

, order suspending respondent pending resolution of t his matter and directing h im to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; respondent’s statement that he does not op pose the imposition of reciprocal discipline

, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel ; and it appearing that respondent has f a iled to file his required D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g) affidavit

, it is

ORDERED that Stewart L. Gitler is hereby suspended from the practice of

law in the District of Columbia for a period of 90 days

. See In re Sibley

, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010) ; I n re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of respondent’s suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files a D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.

PER CURIAM