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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4248 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4248

To require institutions of higher education to disseminate information 
 with respect to the completion rates, employment rates, and retention 
                rates of recipients of GI Bill funding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

Mr. Takano (for himself and Mr. Flores) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require institutions of higher education to disseminate information 
 with respect to the completion rates, employment rates, and retention 
                rates of recipients of GI Bill funding.

    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 ``Veterans Education Outcomes Act''.

SEC. 2. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION WITH RESPECT TO RECIPIENTS OF GI BILL 
              FUNDING.

    Section 485(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(Q)--
                    (A) in clause (iii), by striking ``and''; and
                    (B) by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (iv); 
                and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(v) are recipients of educational 
                        assistance provided under chapter 30 or 33 of 
                        title 38, United States Code, or chapter 1606 
                        of title 10, United States Code;''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) The information disseminated under subparagraphs (E), 
        (L), (R), (S), and (U) of paragraph (1) shall be disaggregated 
        by the recipients of educational assistance provided under 
        chapter 30 or 33 of title 38, United States Code, or chapter 
        1606 of title 10, United States Code, if the number of students 
        in such subgroup is sufficient to yield statistically reliable 
        information and reporting will not reveal personally 
        identifiable information about an individual student. If such 
        number is not sufficient for such purposes, then the 
        institution shall note that the institution enrolled too few of 
        such students to so disclose or report with confidence and 
        confidentiality.''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Pierre Je Bron MOORE

No. 243P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

*691Ms. Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, For Moore, Pierre Je Bron.

Mr. Joseph E. Herrin, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, For the State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2017 by Defendant in this matter for Writ of Prohibition, 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."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 21st of July 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Orange County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th of July 2017 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 1st of November 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of August 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of August 2017 by Defendant to Hold Petition for Discretionary Review In Abeyance:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."
SWAN BEACH COROLLA, L.L.C., et al. v. COUNTY OF CURRITUCK, et al.

397A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 29, 2017

G. Nicholas Herman, Attorney at Law, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, for County of Currituck, et al.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, Lacy H. Reaves, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Swan Beach Corolla, L.L.C., et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 22nd of December 2017 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of December 2017."

*270Defendants shall have up to and including the 22nd day of February 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina ex rel., William G. ROSS, Jr., Secretary, North Carolina Dept. of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Waste Management, Plaintiffs, v. Jay CARTER, a/k/a William Joseph Carter, a/k/a William Joseph Carter, IV, a/k/a William Joseph Carter, Sr., Defendant.

No. COA15-629.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in Part; Dismissed in Part.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 17-1375C

Filed: June 28, 2022

GREGORY D. MARSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

ORDER

On April 8, 2022, the Court directed that an amended complaint be filed in this case by 

May 31, 2022, challenging the ABCMR’s final decision on remand. (ECF No. 47). On May 25, 

2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to withdraw from this matter and stayed all 

deadlines for thirty (30) days to allow the Plaintiff to retain new counsel. (ECF No. 52). That 

Order directed Plaintiff to file a notice with the Clerk’s office “as soon as possible,” informing 

the Court of his current contact information for notifications of future filings in this case. (Id.). 

The Order also directed Plaintiff to file either a motion for substitution of counsel or a notice 

informing the Court of Plaintiff’s intention to proceed pro se by June 24, 2022. (Id.). Plaintiff has 

not filed either. If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the Court’s rules and order, 

the Court may dismiss the action on its own motion for failure to prosecute. RCFC 41(b). 

Instead, Plaintiff has notified the Court and the Defendant’s counsel that he does not wish to 

pursue this case anymore. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 6, ECF No. 53). The United States filed a 

consent motion to dismiss on June 24, 2022. (Id.). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the United States’ consent motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

53). All remaining claims in this case are dismissed as moot under RCFC 12(b)(1). See B&B 

Med. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 658, 662 (2014) (“When a matter becomes moot, 

we lose subject-matter jurisdiction over it, and dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(1) is in order.”). The 

Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. The telephonic status conference 

previously scheduled in this case for June 29, 2022, is hereby CANCELED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ David A. Tapp

DAVID A. TAPP, Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fred Parker, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 584]

Appeal by the defen*483dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Buchter, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly determined that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to counsel after receiving his *Miranda*warnings (see, *Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436), and that his statements to law enforcement officials were voluntary.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                      26,473,577
<SECURITIES>                                27,030,902
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,895,287
<PP&E>                                      13,240,896
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,243,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              56,919,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,372,134
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       140,974
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,307,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                56,919,479
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,883,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,883,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,883,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.42)
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 137021 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137021 

 COA: 276292 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-002269-FC 

DEANDRE LASHAWN GRAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 1, 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. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

d1020 

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 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Thomas Steven HENSON, Plaintiff, v. Robin Black HENSON, Defendant.

No. COA16-1064

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 6, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
#### Jose Paulino, Appellant, v Xiaoyu Dai et al., Respondents.

[720 NYS2d 361]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated March 6, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether he sustained such a serious injury. The plaintiff failed to submit competent medical evidence in admissible form indicating what treatment, if any, he received for his alleged injuries in the three years between the accident and the examination conducted by his chiropractor in November 1999. In addition, the affidavit of the plaintiffs chiropractor was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff sustained serious injury as it did not provide any information concerning the nature of the plaintiffs medical treatment between the time of the accident and the chiropractor’s examination of the plaintiff *(see, Goldin v Lee,*275 AD2d 341; *Smith v Askew,*264 AD2d 834; *Dimenshteyn v Caruso,*262 AD2d 348; *Miller v Donohue,*
      *620250 AD2d 825; *Williams v Ciaramella, 250*AD2d 763; *Rum v Pam Transp.,*250 AD2d 751; *Medina v Zalmen Reis & Assocs.,*239 AD2d 394).

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s self-serving statement that he was unable to return to his job as a result of the subject accident, without more, was insufficient to show that he sustained a medically-determined injury or impairment of a nonpermanent nature which prevented him from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted his usual and customary daily activities for a period of not less than 90 days during the 180-day period immediately following the accident *(see, Krakofsky v Fox-Rizzi,*273 AD2d 277; *Lalli v Tamasi,*266 AD2d 266; *DiNunzio v County of Suffolk,*256 AD2d 498; *Estrella v Marano,*255 AD2d 358; *Snyder v Perez,*246 AD2d 526; *Ryan v Xuda,*243 AD2d 457; *Yagliyan v Gun Shik Yang,*241 AD2d 518). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley T
Nielson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: May 23, 2006                      /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Hideko HIGA v. David B. TOWNSEND.

No. 2003-CC-1332.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Townsend, David B.; — Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 583-911; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-369.

Denied.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


May 14, 2013


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Diversified Dividend Trust,
Series 4


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New
York Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Diversified Dividend Trust, Series 4 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on May 14, 2013, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-187067) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


 /s/
GERARDO CIPRIANO_______________ 


Gerardo
Cipriano


Vice President
STATE of North Carolina v. Fabian RAMOS

No. COA17-808

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 3, 2018

NO PLAIN ERROR.
# Official Journal C 528/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 528 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6430 December 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 528

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6430 December 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 528/01 | Communication from the Commission supplementing the Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021 | 1 |
| 2021/C 528/02 | Communication from the Commission – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest | 10 |
| 2021/C 528/03 | Commission Notice – Revised GUIDANCE DOCUMENT – EU regime governing trade in ivory | 19 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 528/01

Communication from the Commission supplementing the Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021

1

2021/C 528/02

Communication from the Commission – Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest

10

2021/C 528/03

Commission Notice – Revised GUIDANCE DOCUMENT – EU regime governing trade in ivory

Revised

19

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 528/04 | Euro exchange rates — 29 December 2021 | 36 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 528/04

Euro exchange rates — 29 December 2021

36

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Triangle Petroleum Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shaun
      Toker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.





Date:
                June 10, 2008
            By:*/s/
                SHAUN TOKER*Shaun
                TokerChief
                Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30666

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROCHELLE RENE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-20058-3

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Rochelle Rene Jones has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Jones has not filed a response to this brief. Our independent

review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                  SUBSIDIARIES OF ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



(a) Ascend Foreign Sales Corporation

(b) Ascend Credit Corporation

(c) Ascend Communications Europe Limited (England)

(d) Ascend Communications France SarL

(e) Ascend Communications Japan KK

(f) Ascend Communications Pty. Limited (Australia)

(g) Ascend Communications GmbH (Germany)

(h) Ascend Communications (HK) Limited (Hong Kong)

(i) Ascend Communications Canada Ltd.

(j) Ascend Communications Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)

(k) Ascend Communications Benelux (Belgium)

(l) Ascend Communications Nordic AB (Sweden)

(m) Ascend Communications S.r.l. (Italy)