alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300t–13. Grants to States for reduction of excess hospital capacity

#### (a) "Excess hospital capacity" defined; particular activities

For the purpose of demonstrating the effectiveness of various means for reducing excesses in resources and facilities of hospitals (referred to in this section as "excess hospital capacity"), the Secretary may make grants to State Agencies designated under section 300m(b)(3) 1 of this title to assist such Agencies in—

(1) identifying (by geographic region or by health service) excess hospital capacity,

(2) developing programs to inform the public of the costs associated with excess hospital capacity,

(3) developing programs to reduce excess hospital capacity in a manner which will produce the greatest savings in the cost of health care delivery,

(4) developing means to overcome barriers to the reduction of excess hospital capacity,

(5) in planning, evaluating, and carrying out programs to decertify health care facilities providing health services that are not appropriate, and

(6) any other activity related to the reduction of excess hospital capacity.

#### (b) Terms and conditions

Grants under subsection (a) shall be made on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XVI, §1643, as added Pub. L. 96–79, title III, §301(a), Oct. 4, 1979, 93 Stat. 639.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 300m of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original a reference to section 1521 of act July 1, 1944, which was repealed effective Jan. 1, 1987, by Pub. L. 99–660, title VII, §701(a), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3799. Pub. L. 101–354, §2, Aug. 10, 1990, 104 Stat. 410, enacted section 1503 of act July 1, 1944, which is classified to section 300m of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### Abraham Hoffenberg and Another, Respondents, v. E. J. Brack & Sons, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and defendant’s time to appear, answer or demur, etc., extended ten days. No opinion. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-04-032] 

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING

United States International Trade Commission. 

# TIME AND DATE:

January 6, 2005 at 11 a.m. 

# PLACE:

Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000. 

# STATUS:

Open to the public. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        1.                         *Agenda for future meetings:*                         None.                     

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Final) (Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before January 21, 2005.) 

5. Inv. No. 731-TA-1070A (Certain Crepe Paper Products from China)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on or before January 18, 2005.) 

                        6.                         *Outstanding action jackets:*                         none.                     

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting. 

Issued: December 21, 2004. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 04-28326 Filed 12-22-04; 11:17 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
### §6371f. Authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 such sums as may be necessary.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §397, as added Pub. L. 95–619, title III, §302(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3246; amended Pub. L. 101–440, §8(b), Oct. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 1015; Pub. L. 105–388, §2(b), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3477.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–388 amended section generally, substituting provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 for provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 1991 through 1993.

1990—Pub. L. 101–440 amended section generally, substituting provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years 1991 through 1993 for provisions authorizing appropriations for fiscal years ending Sept. 30, 1978, Sept. 30, 1979, and Sept. 30, 1980.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2900 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2900

To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted living facility 
  in Key West, Florida, to continue to receive supplemental security 
      income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2005

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted living facility 
  in Key West, Florida, to continue to receive supplemental security 
      income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR THE BAYSHORE MANOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY IN 
              KEY WEST, FLORIDA.

    For purposes of the supplemental security income program under 
title XVI of the Social Security Act, the Bayshore Manor assisted 
living facility in Key West, Florida, shall not be considered to be a 
public institution within the meaning of section 1611(e)(1) of such 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §7236. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 101–189, div. C, title XXXI, §3142, Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1680, which related to executive management training in the Department of Energy, was renumbered section 4621 of Pub. L. 107–314, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, by Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(i)(8)(A)–(C), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1778, and is classified to section 2721 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
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

MICHAEL STEPANIAN

Attorney at Law (CSBN 037712)

819 Eddy Street

San Francisco, CA 94109

Telephone: (415) 771-6174

Facsimile: (415) 474-3748

mstepanian@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Defendant

JOHN GIMBEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ooo 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHN GIMBEL,

Defendant.

 /

CR. 09-00989-MHP

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

ORDER TO CONTINUE DATE FOR

HEARING ON DEFENDANT S

MOTION TO DISMISS

___________________________

Defendant JOHN GIMBEL, by and through his counsel of record Michael

Stepanian, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Barry hereby stipulate and agree that the

hearing on defendant s Motion To Dismiss shall be continued from July 15, 2010 to July

29, 2010 at 10 a .m. 

Defense counsel requests this continuance for the purpose of further briefing on

the matter. The parties agree that, taking into account the public interest in prompt

disposition of criminal cases, good cause exists for this extension. Defendant also agrees

to exclude for this period of time any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. Section

3161. The parties represent that the continuance is the reasonable time necessary for

continuity of defense counsel and effective preparation of counsel, taking into account

Case 3:09-cr-00989-MHP Document 34 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). The parties also

agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. Section

3161(h)(8)(A).

Date: July 13, 2010 /s/ Michael Stepanian 

MICHAEL STEPANIAN

Counsel for Defendant

John Gimbel

Date: July 13, 2010 /s/ Kevin Barry 

KEVIN BARRY

Assistant United States Attorney

I have no objection to this continuance.

(Signature attached to this Stipulation)

Date: July 14, 2010 

JOHN GIMBLE

Defendant

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby continues the hearing from July 15,

2010 to July 29, 2010. The Court further finds that an exclusion of time from July 15,

2010 through July 29, 2010 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the

continuance outweigh the be st interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

See 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance

would deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny defense counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of

due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. Section

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.

Date: July , 2010 

MARILYN H. PATEL

U.S. District Court Judge 

15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00989-MHP Document 34 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:09-cr-00989-MHP Document 34 Filed 07/15/10 Page 3 of 3
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCHENKER INC,

Plaintiff(s),

    v.

BARRANGO et al,

Defendant(s).                                                                      /

No. C 09-00779 MHP

ORDER(Nine Month Conditional Dismissal)

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, with a proof of service of a copy on

opposing counsel, within nine (9) months from the date hereof, that the agreed consideration for the

settlement has not been delivered over, this Order shall stand vacated, and the action shall be

restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated:   June 4, 2010MARILYN HALL PATELUnited States District Court Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00779-MHP   Document 21   Filed 06/04/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T14:01:15-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant,

v.

GARY JAMES MILO,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on October 30, 2007, should

be amended as follows:

On page 9, line 7 of first paragraph, replace "elocution."

with "allocution.".
(January 17, 1961)

#### Gertrude Gottlieb, Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Motion by the Association of Casualty and Surety Companies for permission to file a brief as *amicus curice,*granted. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
§ 99.1 Definitions. As used in this part, the term: ( a ) *Convention* means the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption done at The Hague on May 29, 1993.
( b ) Such other terms as are defined in 22 CFR 96.2 shall have the meaning given to them therein.
### §7268. Leasing report

The Secretary of the Interior shall submit to the Congress not later than one year after August 4, 1977, a report on the organization of the leasing operations of the Federal Government, together with any recommendations for reorganizing such functions may deem necessary or appropriate.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VI, §658, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 604.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7783 

ROGER LEE HARRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate

Judge. (3:05-cv-00636-DWD)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 2, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lee Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to proceed before a United States

magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Harrell seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order* dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for which Harrell had not

obtained authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The magistrate judge’s order was entered on the docket on

August 28, 2006. The notice of appeal was filed on October 5,

2006, the date on which Harrell states he delivered it to prison

officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c);

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Harrell failed to

file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense
- 3 -

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
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 297 

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild 

free-roaming horses and burros. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2005 

Mr. RAHALL (for himself and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and 

slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SALE OF WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND 

4 BURROS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(d)(5) of Public Law 

6 92–195 (16 U.S.C. 1333(d)(5)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the period and inserting the fol8 lowing: ‘‘Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse 

9 or burro or its remains may be sold or transferred 
2 

•HR 297 IH 

1 for consideration for processing into commercial 

2 products.’’; and 

3 (2) by striking subsection (e). 

4 (b) CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.—Section (8)(a)(4) of 

5 Public Law 92–195 (16 U.S.C. 1338(a)(4)) is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘except as provided in section 3(e),’’. 

Æ
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PENNY BENDER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

as administrator and

fiduciary of the

Bertelsmann, Inc. Employee

Protection Plan, Number 503;

BERTELSMANN, INC. EMPLOYEE

PROTECTION PLAN NUMBER 503,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1163 MMC (BZ)

INITIAL DISCOVERY ORDER

All discovery in this matter has been referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. 

In the event a discovery dispute arises, the parties

shall meet in person or, if counsel are outside the Bay Area,

by telephone and make a good faith effort to resolve their

dispute. Exchanging letters or telephone messages about the

dispute is insufficient. The Court will not read subsequent

positioning letters; parties shall instead make a

contemporaneous record of their meeting using a tape recorder

Case 3:09-cv-01163-MMC Document 44 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

or a court reporter.

 In the event they cannot resolve their dispute, the

parties must participate in a telephone conference with the

Court before filing any discovery motions or other papers. 

The party seeking discovery shall request a conference in a

letter filed electronically not exceeding two pages (with no

attachments) which briefly explains the nature of the action

and the issues in dispute. Other parties shall reply in

similar fashion within two days of receiving the letter

requesting the conference. The Court will contact the parties

to schedule the conference.

After the conference with the Court, if filing papers is

deemed necessary, they should be filed electronically with the

Clerk’s Office, with one hard copy delivered directly to

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s Chambers (Room 15-6688). A

chambers copy of all briefs shall be submitted on a diskette

formatted in WordPerfect or e-mailed to the following address:

bzpo@cand.uscourts.gov

Dated: April 29, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\BENDER V. HARTFORD INS\INITIAL DISCOVERY ORDER.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01163-MMC Document 44 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2
```

POWER OF ATTORNEY

    Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each
of Jonathan D. Kantor and Stathy Darcy, signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact to:

(1)    execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity as an
officer and/or director of CNA Financial Corporation (the "Company"), Forms 3, 4,
and 5 in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the rules thereunder; and

(2)    do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which may be
necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, 4, or 5,
complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file
such form with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any
stock exchange or similar authority; and

(3)   take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing
which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best
interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that the
documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned
pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such
terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such attorney-in-
fact's discretion.

       The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to
do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary, or proper to be
done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such
attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this
power of attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges
that the forgoing attorney-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the undersigned,
are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the undersigned's responsibilities to
comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

       This Power of Attorney shall supersede any existing power of attorney and shall remain
in full force and effect until a successor power of attorney is executed or the undersigned is no
longer required to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the undersigned's holdings of and
transactions in securities issued by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in
a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be
executed as of this 28th day of July, 2015.

                          /s/ Kevin J. Leidwinger
                        _________________________
                        Name: Kevin J. Leidwinger
```
### SUBCHAPTER XXII—WASHOE PROJECT, NEVADA-CALIFORNIA
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, aDelaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:      November 10,  2008 | /s/  John W. Elias       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                                              | John  W. Elias           |
|                                                              | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----