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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4120 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive coinsurance under 

Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether 

therapeutic intervention is required during the screening. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2012 

Mr. DENT (for himself, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. FITZPATRICK, and Mr. PAYNE) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to waive 

coinsurance under Medicare for colorectal cancer screening tests, regardless of whether therapeutic intervention 

is required during the screening. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Barriers to 

5 Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 2012’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4120 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Colorectal cancer is the second leading 

4 cause of cancer death among men and women in the 

5 United States. 

6 (2) It is estimated that 143,460 new cases of 

7 colorectal cancer are expected to occur in 2012. 

8 (3) More than 50,000 people in the United 

9 States are expected to die from colorectal cancer in 

10 2012. 

11 (4) It is estimated that if all precancerous pol12 yps were identified and removed before becoming 

13 cancerous, estimates show the number of new 

14 colorectal cancer cases could be reduced by 76 to 90 

15 percent and deaths could be reduced by 70 to 90 

16 percent. 

17 (5) Although colorectal cancer is largely pre18 ventable, one in three adults between the ages of 50 

19 and 75 are not up to date with recommended 

20 colorectal cancer screening. 

21 (6) Two-thirds of colorectal cancer cases are di22 agnosed in patients over the age of 65. 

23 (7) Colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy is a 

24 highly effective preventive service, and removing fi25 nancial barriers can help to increase rates of screen26 ing. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4120 IH

1 SEC. 3. WAIVING MEDICARE COINSURANCE FOR 

2 COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING TESTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(a)(1)(Y) of the So4 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(Y)) is amended 

5 by inserting ‘‘, including tests and procedures described 

6 in the last sentence of subsection (b),’’ after ‘‘section 

7 1861(ddd)(3)’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 173.4 Terms of use and other compliance.

Requesters and users of Department Web sites, or third-party Web sites containing Program Material, are responsible for complying with the Terms of Use applicable to any such site. Requesters are also solely responsible for complying with any applicable statutes governing the use of such material and securing appropriate licenses for use of such material, if required.
§ 213.39 Exceptions to mandatory transfer. USAID is not required to transfer a debt to the Financial Management Service (FMS) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury pursuant to § 214.37(b) during such period of time that the debt: ( a ) Is in litigation or foreclosure;
( b ) Is scheduled for sale;
( c ) Is at a private collection contractor;
( d ) Is at a debt collection center if the debt has been referred to a Treasury-designated debt collection center;
( e ) Is being collected by internal offset; or
( f ) Is covered by an exemption granted by Treasury.
[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 31146, June 11, 2021]
Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

(310) 503-7286 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: Part 16 Complaint 

March 27, 2015 

RECEIVED 

MAR 2 7 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

National Business Aviation Association, Krueger Aviation, Inc., Harrison 

Ford, justice Aviation, Kim Davidson Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, 

james Ross, Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association v. City of Santa Monica, California 

Docket Nos. 16-14-04/FAA-2014-0592 

Correction to Response of the Complainants to Request for Additional Information 

Complainants have identified a typographical error in their Response dated March 

25, 2015. On p. 5, a bullet point states that: "The blast wall was placed into service on or 

about May 27, 2002." Consistent with p. 2 of the response, the cited date should be March 

27, 2002. 

Rk~ 1700 Decker School Lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

310-503-7286 

1 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing answer to be served on the 

following persons by first-class mail with a copy by electronic mail: 

Elaine Polachek 

Interim City Manager 

Martin Pastucha 

Interim Assistant City Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 209 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

elaine.polachek@vsmgov.net 

martin.pastucha@smgov.net 

Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney 

joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney 

Lance Gams, Deputy City Attorney 

Ivan Campbell, Deputy City Attorney 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 310 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

marsha.moutrie(alsmgov.net 

joseph.lawrenceCmsmgov.net 

lance.gams@smgov.net 

ivan.campbell@smg_ov.net 

Stelios Makrides 

Airport Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

.stelios.makrides@smgov.net 

Dated this 27th day of March 2015. 

2 

RECEIVED 

MAR ::::1 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS
#### §§ 1600.161-1600.169 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.S.W., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: A.M. :

:

:

:

: No. 579 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Appellee

______________________

2021-2305

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 61673 and 61675, Administrative Judge Lis 

B. Young, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, and Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

-------------------------------------------------

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Appellant

v.

NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2021-2308

______________________

Case: 21-2305 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2022
NAUSET CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF THE 

ARMY

2

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in Nos. 61673 and 61675, Administrative Judge Lis 

B. Young, Administrative Judge Owen C. Wilson, and Administrative Judge Richard Shackleford.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Secretary of the Army’s unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss her cross-appeal, 

Appeal No. 2021-2308, under Rule 42(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that Appeal No. 

2021-2308 is dismissed. The revised official captions are

reflected above.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs as to Appeal No. 

2021-2308.

(3) The Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to this case.

May 16, 2022

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 2021-2308 only):

May 16, 2022

Case: 21-2305 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2022
§ 9.20 Notice of appeal. ( a ) *Time to file.* Except as provided in § 9.1(b), any person who is the subject of disciplinary or access denial action by an exchange or any person who is otherwise adversely affected by any other action of an exchange may, at any time within thirty days after notice of the disciplinary or access denial action has been delivered to the person disciplined or denied access in accordance with § 9.11, or within thirty days after notice of another adverse action, file a notice of appeal of such disciplinary, access denial or other adverse action. The Commission may dismiss any appeal for which a notice of appeal is not timely filed.
( b ) *Contents.* The notice of appeal need consist only of a brief statement indicating that the party is requesting Commission review of the exchange action, and must include: ( 1 ) The name and address of the appellant, and any duly authorized agent or officer of the appellant;
( 2 ) The name and docket number of the exchange proceeding;
( 3 ) The date on which the disciplinary, access denial or other adverse action was imposed by the exchange or the date on which the final exchange decision was rendered, and the dates upon which the exchange action has or will become final and effective;
( 4 ) A copy of the notice provided to the appellant by the exchange in accordance with the provisions of § 9.11, in the case of a disciplinary or access denial action, or otherwise, in the case of any other adverse exchange action;
( 5 ) The relief sought from the action of the exchange;
( 6 ) The appellant's request for a copy of the record of the exchange proceeding, or portions of the record not in the appellant's possession, and a representation that the appellant agrees to pay the exchange reasonable fees, as provided in the rules of the exchange, for printing that copy; and
( 7 ) A nonrefundable filing fee of $100 remitted by check, bank draft or money order, payable to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
[52 FR 25366, July 7, 1987; 52 FR 27286, July 20, 1987]
EX-31.2 CertificationPursuant to Section 302 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER 

I, Charles Gianetto, certify that: 

1.              I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of TS&B Holdings, Inc.; 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue          statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make          the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements          were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual          report; 

3.              Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information          included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the          financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as          of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report; 

4.              The registrant’ officers and I are responsible for establishing and          maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules          13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

    a)                 designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material          information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,          is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the          period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared; 

    b)                 evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this          Quarterly Report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

    c)                 presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the          disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation          Date; 

5.              The registrant’s officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent          evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of          registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent          function): 

    a)                 all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls          which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the          registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

    b)                 any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

Date: November 17, 2003 

/s/ Charles Gianetto
Re: RIA - Ch 1 Larry Sorrels to: Cortney_Higgins 03/15/2011 11:16 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland, evans.ron, Bill Maxwell, Lydia Wegman

Chapter1Exec SummaryToxicsRuleRIA3-14OMB2_Int eragencyCommentsUnderEO12866_03142011EPAedits3- 15cleanrevised.docx

Cortney,

I have made corrections to the executive summary chapter. As to what you saw, the comment about the footnote referred to the footnote 1 of Table 1-3 that is now there. I've removed the red text for footnote 2 of that table, and I've added the agreed to language to footnote c of Table 1-1.

The exec. summary should be clean now. Thanks.

Larry Sorrels US EPA/OAQPS/HEID/AEG RTP, NC 27711 919-541-5041 919-541-0839 (fax) C439-02 Room No. C445-A

-----"Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> wrote: ----- To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> Date: 03/15/2011 10:30PM Cc: Larry Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RIA - Ch 1 (See attached file: Chapter1Exec SummaryToxicsRuleRIA3- 14OMB2_InteragencyCommentsUnderEO12866_03142011EPAedi ts3-15clean.docx)

Hi Bob,

The “clean” version still has comments in it. On page 6, there’s a comment saying the footnote cannot be accepted. Do you know what that refers to?

Additionally, a footnote on page 5 is in red text instead of black. That should be corrected.

Finally, footnote c for Table 1-1 appears to be incomplete. It was our understanding it would include a statement that the multimarket model did not examine indirect effects.

Thanks, Cortney
### §§2931 to 2933. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2931, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §581, formerly §521, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(a), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 713; renumbered §581, Pub. L. 93–644, §8(c), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2310, set forth Congressional statement of purpose for day care projects.

Section 2932, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §582, formerly §522, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(a), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 713; amended Pub. L. 92–424, §19, Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 696; renumbered §582 and amended Pub. L. 93–644, §8(b), (c), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2310; Pub. L. 95–568, §17(a)(24), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2441, set forth authority, etc., for projects.

Section 2933, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §583, formerly §523, as added Pub. L. 90–222, title I, §107(a), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 714; amended Pub. L. 91–177, title I, §101(c), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 827; Pub. L. 92–424, §2(b), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 688; renumbered §583 and amended Pub. L. 93–644, §§8(b), (c), 14(b), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2310, 2329; Pub. L. 94–341, §3(c), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 95–568, §12, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2435, related to program duration.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
Editorial Note on Part 218
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 218 appear at 68 FR 51363, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 218.24 Information requirements. Each recipient shall: ( a ) Make available upon request to the agency information necessary to determine whether the recipient is complying with the regulations.
( b ) Permit reasonable access by the agency to the books, records, accounts, and other recipient facilities and sources of information to the extent necessary to determine whether a recipient is in compliance with these regulations.
Searched for **https://marine.ucsc.edu/index.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://marine.ucsc.edu/index.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
### §§290aa–9, 290aa–10. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–321, title I, §120(a), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 358

Section 290aa–9, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §509B, as added Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4006, 100 Stat. 3207–114; amended Oct. 27, 1992, Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312(d)(11), 106 Stat. 3505, related to research on public health emergencies.

Section 290aa–10, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §509C, as added Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §420 [4020], 100 Stat. 3207–122, related to guidelines for use of animals in research.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1992, with provision for programs providing financial assistance, see section 801(c), (d) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 236 of this title.
##### 



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
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 15, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Glenn M. Parker, M.D.Glenn M. Parker, M.D.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: May 15, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Timothy FairbanksTimothy FairbanksChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7381

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DEBBIE MARIE SINGLETON, a/k/a Debbie Marie Wofford, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, ChiefDistrict Judge. (1:05-cr-00030-jpj-mfu-3; 1:08-cv-80071-jpjmfu))

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Debbie Marie Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Debbie Marie Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Singleton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Gisele Holloway ! 295 Autumn Wood Lane, GA 30075 ! Phone: 404.368.5677 

E-Mail: contact@aerialavenue.com ! Web: www.aerialavenue.com

Date: 01/11/2016

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

As I am a photographer or several years now, I have decided to expand and create another business utilizing unmanned 

aerial vehicles to serve the needs in the market here in Georgia from companies that have been looking for aerial services 

utilizing UAS’s. I would like to request FAA authorizations under the Exemption 333 to conduct Aerial photography, 

videography, inspection for Real Estate, architecture, land surveying, engineering, television, public events, cinematography, 

newsgathering, utility infrastructure, and search and rescue.

The proposed operations will be conducted utilizing with a DJI Phantom 3 Pro, when weighting less than 55 pounds 

including payload. All operations must utilize a visual observer, also operated within the visual line of sight. And in 

accordance with the FAA guidelines for UAV’s and it’s operations rules, such as operational speed exceeding 87 knots (100 

miles per hour), which will be monitored and in compliance with the 87 knots speed restriction. In no case will the UA be 

operated at airspeeds grater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufacturer. The UA 

will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400ft above the ground level.

I will be responsible for maintaining and inspection the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. Following 

pre-flight inspections, and making sure UAV is safe to fly.

Under this grant of exemption, The pilot in command will have a Private or sport license, also a current FAA airman 

medical certificate or a valid US driver’s license issues by the estate. Meeting all the flight requirements specified. Only 

permitting the PIC after demonstrate the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this grant. 

Again, I am aware of all the rules, as I have been doing training and research on the industry for almost a year. And I will 

safely follow all the guidelines currently presented by the FAA and keep them update as new update rules appears. 

Sincerely,

Gisele Holloway

Owner at Aerial Avenue
§ 223.10 Final decision. ( a ) In cases where the former employee failed to request a hearing after receiving adequate notice, the General Counsel shall decide the matter on its merits based upon the evidence gathered to date, including any written reply of the former employee.
( b ) In cases of appeal under § 223.9, the Administrator shall accept, reject or modify the initial decision based solely on the record of the proceedings or those portions cited by the parties to limit the issues.