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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2691 

To amend the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 to require 

the President to submit to the Congress, within 90 days after entering 

into a trade agreement, the implementing legislation, the statement of 

administrative action, and supporting information, with respect to that 

trade agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. MELANCON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act 

of 2002 to require the President to submit to the Congress, within 90 days after entering into a trade agreement, the implementing legislation, the statement of administrative action, and supporting information, with respect to that trade agreement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TIME PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS 

4 OF INFORMATION ON TRADE AGREEMENTS. 

5 Section 2105(a)(1)(C) of the Bipartisan Trade Pro6 motion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805(a)(1)(C)) 
2 

•HR 2691 IH 

1 by striking ‘‘(C) after’’ and inserting ‘‘(C) within 90 days 

2 after’’. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Monster Worldwide, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Andrew J. McKelvey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|        |   | By:    |   | /s/ ANDREW J.  MCKELVEY  |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Andrew J.  McKelvey      |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive  Officer |
|   |   |   |   | August 8,  2005     |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained byMonster Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME

OPPORTUNITY FUND,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04575 SI

THIRD

PRETRIAL PREPARATION ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED pursuant to F.R.C.P. and the Local Rules of this Court:

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT: July 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m.

Counsel must file a joint case management statement seven days in advance of the conference.

DISCOVERY PLAN: Per F.R.Civ.P and Local Rules, subject to any provisions below.

NON-EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is September 3, 2010.

DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS: 9/24/10; REBUTTAL: 10/15/10. Parties SHALL conform to Rule 26(a)(2).

EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF is November 12, 2010.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL be filed by December 3, 2010; 

Opp. Due December 17, 2010; Reply Due December 23, 2010;

 and set for hearing no later than January 14, 2010 at 9:00 AM.

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE: February 22, 2011 at 3:30 PM.

JURY TRIAL DATE: March 7, 2011 at 8:30 AM., Courtroom 10, 19th floor.

TRIAL LENGTH is estimated to be days.

SPECIAL DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL PROVISIONS:

By April 16, 2010, counsel shall inform the Court of the type of ADR procedure and the date it’s

scheduled to occur. The parties have agreed to participate in an ADR process either late June 2010 or

early July 2010.

The parties have agreed to increase the number of interrogatories up to 50, 

The pretrial conference SHALL be attended by trial counsel prepared to discuss all aspects of the case,

including settlement. Parties SHALL conform to the attached instructions. Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of this order on any party subsequently joined in this action.

Dated: 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04575-SI Document 121 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 1
### §1396b–1. Payment adjustment for health care-acquired conditions

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection referred to as the "Secretary") shall identify current State practices that prohibit payment for health care-acquired conditions and shall incorporate the practices identified, or elements of such practices, which the Secretary determines appropriate for application to the Medicaid program in regulations. Such regulations shall be effective as of July 1, 2011, and shall prohibit payments to States under section 1903 of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396b] for any amounts expended for providing medical assistance for health care-acquired conditions specified in the regulations. The regulations shall ensure that the prohibition on payment for health care-acquired conditions shall not result in a loss of access to care or services for Medicaid beneficiaries.

#### (b) Health care-acquired condition

In this section.1 the term "health care-acquired condition" means a medical condition for which an individual was diagnosed that could be identified by a secondary diagnostic code described in section 1886(d)(4)(D)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(4)(D)(iv)).

#### (c) Medicare provisions

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall apply to State plans (or waivers) under title XIX of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.] the regulations promulgated pursuant to section 1886(d)(4)(D) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(4)(D)) relating to the prohibition of payments based on the presence of a secondary diagnosis code specified by the Secretary in such regulations, as appropriate for the Medicaid program. The Secretary may exclude certain conditions identified under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.] for non-payment under title XIX of such Act when the Secretary finds the inclusion of such conditions to be inapplicable to beneficiaries under title XIX.

(Pub. L. 111–148, title II, §2702, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 318.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XIX of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter. Title XVIII of the Act is classified generally to subchapter XVIII (§1395 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and not as part of the Social Security Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. The period probably should be a comma.
§ 224.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the A.I.D. Administrator and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the A.I.D. Administrator in accordance with § 224.39.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the A.I.D. Administrator and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the A.I.D. Administrator in accordance with § 224.39.
### §§661, 662. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–193, title III, §362(b)(1), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2246

Section 661, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §461, as added May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95–30, title V, §501(c), 91 Stat. 158, related to regulations pertaining to garnishments.

Section 662, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §462, as added May 23, 1977, Pub. L. 95–30, title V, §501(d), 91 Stat. 159; amended July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VI, §2663(c)(17), 98 Stat. 1167; Oct. 22, 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, §2, 100 Stat. 2095; June 13, 1991, Pub. L. 102–54, §13(q)(3)(B)(ii), 105 Stat. 279, related to definitions for purposes of section 659 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 6 months after Aug. 22, 1996, see section 362(d) of Pub. L. 104–193, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 659 of this title.

For provisions relating to effective date of title III of Pub. L. 104–193, see section 395(a)–(c) of Pub. L. 104–193, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 654 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Aaron J. Levy.

Motion for leave to appeal granted; question certified. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF POLICY

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Transmittal to Docket: Summary of the March 17, 2011, Public Meeting via 

Webinar in Seattle, Washington, regarding the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Implementation of Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review

FROM: Stuart C. Miles-McLean

Office of Regulatory Policy and Management

TO: Public Docket #EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156: Improving Regulations: General

As called for by President Obama in Executive Order 13563, "to facilitate the periodic 

review of existing significant regulations," the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

considering "how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 

them in accordance with what has been learned." 

As part of its retrospective review of regulations, EPA convened public meetings around 

the country to gather input on how we might design the plan we will use to periodically review 

our regulations. This Memo transmits to the docket a summary of the public meeting held via 

webinar on March 17, 2011, in Seattle, Washington.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LENZIE ELLIS,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-00154 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

On July 9, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on defendant Lenzie Ellis’s motion to

dismiss the indictment in this case on the ground that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial

has been violated. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court finds that the length

of the delay, the reasons for the delay, defendant’s assertion of his rights, and the prejudice

occasioned by the delay warrant dismissal of the indictment. See Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S.

647, 651 (1992) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972)).

Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED and the pending charges against him are

DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00154-SI Document 31 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 3.11 Responsibility of chief of mission to inform host government of restrictions on employees' receipt of gifts and decorations.

A special provision of the Act requires the President to direct every chief of a United States diplomatic mission to inform the host government that it is a general policy of the United States Government to prohibit its employees from receiving gifts of more than minimal value or decorations that have not been tendered “in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance.” Accordingly, all Chiefs of Mission shall in January of each year conduct a thorough and explicit program of orientation aimed at appropriate officials of the host government concerning the operation of the Act.
Thank You, Mother!

Insert

Image

Here
§ 1000.502 What are the monitoring responsibilities of the recipient, the grant beneficiary and HUD under NAHASDA? ( a ) The recipient is responsible for monitoring grant activities, ensuring compliance with applicable Federal requirements and monitoring performance goals under the IHP. The recipient is responsible for preparing at least annually: a compliance assessment in accordance with section 403(b) of NAHASDA; a performance report covering the assessment of program progress and goal attainment under the IHP; and an audit in accordance with the Single Audit Act, as applicable. The recipient's monitoring should also include an evaluation of the recipient's performance in accordance with performance objectives and measures. At the request of a recipient, other Indian tribes and/or TDHEs may provide assistance to aid the recipient in meeting its performance goals or compliance requirements under NAHASDA.
( b ) Where the recipient is a TDHE, the grant beneficiary (Indian tribe) is responsible for monitoring programmatic and compliance requirements of the IHP and NAHASDA by requiring the TDHE to prepare periodic progress reports including the annual compliance assessment, performance and audit reports.
( c ) HUD is responsible for reviewing the recipient as set forth in § 1000.520.
( d ) HUD monitoring will consist of on-site as well as off-site review of records, reports and audits. To the extent funding is available, HUD or its designee will provide technical assistance and training, or funds to the recipient to obtain technical assistance and training. In the absence of funds, HUD shall make best efforts to provide technical assistance and training.
PUBLIC LAW 110–93—SEPT. 30, 2007 121 STAT. 999 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3625: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Sept. 25, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–93 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To make permanent the waiver authority of the Secretary of Education with respect 

to student financial assistance during a war or other military operation or national 

emergency. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

It is the sense of Congress that— 

(1) the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students 

Act of 2003 addresses the unique situations that active duty 

military personnel and other affected individuals may face in 

connection with their enrollment in postsecondary institutions 

and their Federal student loans; and 

(2) the provisions authorized by such Act should be made 

permanent, thereby allowing the Secretary of Education to 

continue providing assistance to active duty service members 

and other affected individuals and their families. 

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY. 

The Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act 

of 2003 (Public Law 108–76; 20 U.S.C. 1070, note) is amended 

by striking section 6. 

Approved September 30, 2007. 

20 USC 1098aa 

note. 

Sept. 30, 2007 

[H.R. 3625] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          58,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,112
<PP&E>                                          23,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,330)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 189,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   189,458
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,017
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  147,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,117
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (3,367)
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.40


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is entered into
by and between ANNE-MARIE DULIEGE (“Executive”) and Affymax, Inc.
(the “Company”),
effective as of September 23, 2010 (the “Effective Date”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company retains the services of Executive
pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement dated December 17, 2008 (the
“Employment Agreement”),
and the Company and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement as set
forth below;


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to continue to employ Executive
pursuant to the Employment Agreement, as herein amended;


 


WHEREAS, Executive wishes to continue to be employed by the
Company and provide personal services to the Company in return for certain compensation
and benefits under the Employment Agreement, as herein amended; and


 


WHEREAS, Section 11.4 of the Employment Agreement
provides that it cannot be modified or amended except in a writing signed by an
officer of the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
covenants contained herein, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties
hereto as follows:


 


1.             Clause
(iv) of Section 5.6(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby
amended by replacing the phrase “one (1) year” with the phrase “thirty-six
(36) months.”


 


2.             In
all other respects, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged by this
Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Amendment on the dates written below.


 


	
  ANNE-MARIE DULIEGE

  	
   

  	
  AFFYMAX, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Anne Marie Duliege

  	
   

  	
  By:
  

  	
  Arlene
  M. Morris

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:
  9-24-2010

  	
   

  	
  Its:
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date: 9-23-2010
#### In the Matter of Barry Benjamin Silver, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

May 9, 1977

*Donald E. Humphrey*for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on December 23, 1964. In this proceeding to disci*216pline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The reporting Justice found the respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in that on January 23, 1975 he was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, of two counts of willfully attempting to evade income taxes. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year on each count, th§ sentences to run consecutively, and on the condition that he be confined for a period of three months on each of the two counts, the periods of confinement to run consecutively, the execution of the remainder of the sentences was suspended, and he was placed on concurrent five-year periods of probation. The respondent was imprisoned in a Federal prison camp from February 6, 1975 until July 19, 1975.

After reviewing all of the evidence and the report of Mr. Justice Walsh, we are in complete agreement with the findings contained in the report. Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted.

In determining the appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed we are mindful of the respondent’s previously unblemished record and the fact that he has already paid more than $22,000 in taxes, interest and penalties owed and continues to pay his debt to the Internal Revenue Service at the rate of $500 per month. Under these circumstances, it is our opinion that respondent be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Mollen, JJ., concur.