alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

______________________________________

)

COMMON GROUND HEALTHCARE )

COOPERATIVE, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 17-877C

)

v. ) Filed: June 1, 2021

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________________ )

ORDER

On April 13, 2021, the Dispute Subclass, which consists of Freelancers Co-Op of New 

Jersey, Inc., and the United States filed a stipulation to entry of judgment. See Stip. for Entry of 

Partial J. as to the Dispute Subclass, ECF No. 142. The parties stipulate that the Dispute Subclass

is entitled to payment from the United States in the amount of $44,399,653.90 under the risk 

corridors program created by Section 1342 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. 

L. No. 111-148 (2010), 124 Stat. 119, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 

2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152 (2010), 124 Stat. 1029 (collectively, the “ACA”), for the 2016 benefit 

year. See ECF No. 142 at 3. The parties further stipulate that the United States is entitled to 

payment from the Dispute Subclass in the amount of $32,659,026.85, which includes payments 

from the Dispute Subclass associated with advance payment of tax credits, cost-sharing reductions,

cost-sharing reduction reconciliations, federally-facilitated exchange user fees, risk adjustment 

program user fees, and a start-up loan received from the United States. Id. The parties request 

that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Dispute Subclass and judgment in favor of the United 

States in accordance with the stipulation. See id. at 3-4. 
2

Having determined pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of 

Federal Claims that there is no just reason for delay, the Court directs the Clerk to enter final 

judgment in favor of the Dispute Subclass in the amount of $44,399,653.90 and final judgment in 

favor of the United States in the amount of $32,659,026.85. The judgment in favor of the United 

States shall be paid and satisfied in full through deduction from the amount owed under the 

judgment to the Dispute Subclass, creating a net amount payable by the United States to the 

Dispute Subclass totaling $11,740,627.05. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2021 /s/ Kathryn C. Davis

KATHRYN C. DAVIS

Judge
### §1623. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 92–203, §24, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 715.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph John Jones, Appellant.

Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court entered March 17,1961 dismissed upon stipulation.
### §1771. Coordination of applications

Applicants before Federal departments and agencies other than the Department of the Interior or Agriculture seeking a license, certificate, or other authority for a project which involve a right-of-way over, upon, under, or through public land or National Forest System lands must simultaneously apply to the Secretary concerned for the appropriate authority to use public lands or National Forest System lands and submit to the Secretary concerned all information furnished to the other Federal department or agency.

(Pub. L. 94–579, title V, §511, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2782.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

See note set out under section 1763 of this title.
#### Watson & Strickland *v.*Parian Paint Company.

Lumpkin, J.

1. A demurrer to an action brought in the superior court on an open account, on the ground that the items of the account are not sufficiently specific, should be filed at the first term.

2. The open account involved in this case had certain headings, such as, “Articles,” “Size package,” “Price,” “Amount.” Under each head were written certain letters and figures, such'as “30 gals., *ff:*39, bile., 1.05, 31.50.” Accompanying these items were dates. In some cases there were added words descriptive of the articles, such as “Stucco,” “Pekin br.,” and “Raw oil.” *Held,*that the suit was not so fatally defective that a defendant who failed to demur or plead at the first term, after entry of default, could, at the trial term, without moving to open the default, have the case dismissed on motion on the ground that no itemized account was attached to the suit “that is sufficiently legible and intelligible as to put defendant upon notice of what the suit is intended to cover,” and that “the statement of account was so vague and indefinite as that no valid judgment could be rendered on the suit.”

(a) Such a motion was properly overruled. *Central Ry. Co.*v. *Motz,*130 *Ga.*414 (61 S. E. 1).

3. At the trial, no defense having been filed, and the case being in default, there was no error in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount due on the account. Civil Code, § 5662.

(a) No question having been raised as to the service, and the entry of *622service not having been brought to this court, it will be presumed that due service was made. *Judgment' affirmed.*

August 19, 1912.

Complaint. Before Judge Edwards. Haralson superior court. January *20,*1911.

*G. B. Hutchens,*for plaintiff in error. *B. F. Boykin,*contra.

*All the Justices concur.*
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2953 

To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, 

Georgia, as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil Rights Institute’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

Mr. SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the building located at 493 Auburn Avenue, 

N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil 

Rights Institute’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOHN LEWIS CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The building located at 493 Au5 burn Avenue, N.E., in Atlanta, Georgia, shall be known 

6 and designated as the ‘‘John Lewis Civil Rights Insti7 tute’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall 
2 

•HR 2953 IH 

1 be deemed to be a reference to the John Lewis Civil Rights 

2 Institute. 

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 19, 2012

h0912

Order 

September 19, 2012

144161 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144161

COA: 304599

Ingham CC: 81-031276-FH

MICHAEL SWEET, 81-031277-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lloyd Berry, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 3, 1976, convicting him of several counts of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. Defendant Berry was indicted with one Raymond Mintz in connection with the robbery of three men on February 5, 1976 and a joint trial was commenced. Just prior to the conclusion of the People’s case, however, codefendant Mintz elected to plead guilty and, thereafter, he became a principal witness for the defense. Mintz testified that he had committed the robbery with someone named Sonny Simms and not with defendant Berry. As part of his defense, Berry then presented Simms, who admitted to having been Mintz’ accomplice, but whose version of the robbery did not coincide with the version given by any of the three victims, or by Mintz himself. At that point the trial court ordered Simms to leave the stand and declared, in the presence of the jury, that his testimony was incredible as a matter of law. The court, over defendant’s objection, then instructed the jury to disregard all of Simms’ testimony. Defendant appeals. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, affords an accused the right to a trial by jury and the right to present witnesses in his own defense *(Washington v Texas,*388 US 14). Since the credibility of defendant’s witnesses was a question of fact to be determined by the jury, the court’s ruling that Simms’ testimony was incredible as a matter of law operated to deprive this defendant of his right to a jury trial (see *People v Ohanian,*245 NY 227). In short, if the witness is competent, the court may not impede the fact-finding process of the jury (cf. *Webb v Texas,*409 US 95). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Suozzi and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      36,601,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     116,567,803
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,787,548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             151,246,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   148,058,824
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               151,246,420
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,928,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,292,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,959,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,959,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,959,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        



</TABLE>
You are here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Clean Air Markets 

Clean air markets include various market-based regulatory programs designed to improve air quality by 

reducing outdoor concentrations of fine particles, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. This Web 

site provides the information and tools that are necessary to participate in any of these market-based

programs.

Industry

States and Regions

Other Market

Participants

Acid Rain Program 

NOx Trading Programs CAIR

CSAPR

US-Canada 

Assessments & Tools

Progress Reports

Interactive Mapping

Power Plant Emission Trends

Quick Finder 

Acid Rain

Air Transport

CAMD Business System 

CASTNET 

CSAPR 

ECMPS 

eGRID 

Forms 

Integrated Planning Model

Partnerships 

Progress Reports 

Report Emissions 

Surface Water Chemistry

Transfer Allowances 

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/

Last updated on Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA Page 1 of 2

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 6/3/2014
Basics

Resources

Partnerships

Trading Basics

Buying Allowances 

Annual Auction

Rules, Policies and Instructions

Protocol Gas Verification Program

Air Emission Testing Bodies

Air Markets Program Data (AMPD)

AMPD Tutorial

CASTNET

TIME/LTM

Interactive Mapping

Acid Rain

Smog

Mercury 

Regional Haze/PM

Climate Change

Acid Rain Program

NOx Programs

Multi-Pollutant Analyses

Air Quality and Ecological

Follow Us! 

You can follow EPA's Clean Air 

Markets on:

Twitter

Facebook

What's New 

April 29, 2014 -The U.S. 

Supreme Court reversed

the D.C. Circuit opinion 

vacating CSAPR. EPA is 

reviewing the opinion. At 

this time, CAIR remains in 

place and no immediate 

action from States or 

affected sources is 

expected. 

Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA Page 2 of 2

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ 6/3/2014
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.609 Revocation or amendment of DAPIA approval. ( a ) The DAPIA that issued an approval or the Secretary may revoke or amend, prospectively, an approval notification issued under § 3282.603. The approval may be revoked or amended whenever the DAPIA or HUD determines that: ( 1 ) The manufacturer is not complying with the terms of the approval or the requirements of this section;
( 2 ) The approval was not issued in conformance with the requirements of § 3282.603;
( 3 ) A home produced under the approval fails to comply with the Federal construction and safety standards or contains an imminent safety hazard; or
( 4 ) The manufacturer fails to make arrangements for one or more manufactured homes to be inspected by the IPIA prior to occupancy.
( b ) The DAPIA must immediately notify the manufacturer, the IPIA, and HUD of any revocation or amendment of DAPIA approval.
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

Defendant failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of his motion for an

extension of time. Although the Court has considered the motion, defendant, for future

reference, is reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing Orders: “In all

cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed

electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later than

noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked

‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly marked

with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant

 /

No. C 09-2668 MMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

By order filed January 28, 2010, the Court directed defendant to serve plaintiff, no

later than February 5, 2010, with a copy of the administrative transcript, and to file, no later

than February 5, 2010, proof of such service.

Before the Court is defendant’s motion, filed February 17, 2010, for an extension of

time to file the above-referenced proof of service, specifically, an extension to February 23,

2010.1

 Thereafter, on February 23, 2010, defendant filed proof of service, which filing

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 25 Filed 02/25/10 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

indicates defendant served plaintiff with the administrative transcript on December 17, 2009.

Good cause appearing, defendant’s motion for an extension to file the proof of

service is hereby GRANTED.

The deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment remains March 12,

2010, as set forth in the Court’s January 28, 2010 order. In such motion, plaintiff shall set

forth all arguments in support of his position that the administrative law judge’s decision of

February 23, 2007 is erroneous. The Court hereby informs plaintiff that a failure to file a

motion for summary judgment may result in dismissal of the above-titled action for failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02668-MMC Document 25 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 92.77 Recording documents. ( a ) *Consular authority.* Consular officers may, at their discretion, accept for recording in the Miscellaneous Record Book of the office concerned unofficial documents such as deeds, leases, agreements, wills, and so on. The object of this service is primarily to afford United States citizens and interests the means of preserving, in official custody, records of their business and other transactions where other suitable facilities are not available locally for making such records. The recording of unofficial documents is not a notarial service, strictly speaking; however, the certifying of copies of documents thus recorded is a notarial service.
( b ) *Recording procedure.* Generally, before accepting a document for recording the consular officer should require satisfactory proof of its genuineness. The document should be copied, word for word, in the Miscellaneous Record Book. At the close of the record a statement that it is a true copy of the original should be entered and signed by the consular officer who copies or compares the record. In the margin of the first page where the document is recorded, the consular officer should note the following data: ( 1 ) By whom the document is presented for recording;
( 2 ) On whose behalf the service is requested;
( 3 ) Date and hour of presentation for recording;
( 4 ) How the authenticity of the document was proved (where appropriate); and
( 5 ) The name of the person by whom recorded (in his proper signature) and the name of the consular officer with whom compared (in his proper signature).
( c ) *Certificate of recording.* Ordinarily, a certificate of recording need not be issued. The original document may simply be endorsed: “Recorded at (name and location of consular office) this __________ day of __________________, 19____, in (here insert appropriate reference to volume of Miscellaneous Record Book)”. Below the endorsement should appear the notation regarding the service number, the Tariff item number, and the amount of the fee collected. When a certificate of recording is requested, the consular officer may issue it, if he sees fit to do so. The certificate may be either entered on the document, if space permits, or appended to the document as a separate sheet in the manner prescribed in § 92.17.
( d ) *Fees.* The fee for recording unofficial documents at a Foreign Service post is as prescribed under the caption “Copying and Recording” of the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter). For purposes of assessment of fees, the issuance of certificates of recording, when requested, shall be regarded as part of the consular service of recording unofficial documents, and no separate fee shall be charged for the certificate.
**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 **

|   | (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |                                                              |                                |
|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
| Dated                this 31st day of January, 2007. | By:                                                     | /s/                Jibin Zhang |
|                                                 | Jibin                Zhang Chief                Financial Officer |

----
Editorial Note on Part 5
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 65 FR 16715, Mar. 29, 2000.

§ 5.234 Requests for information from SWICAs and Federal agencies; restrictions on use. ( a ) *Information available from SWICAs and Federal agencies—to whom and what.* Income information will generally be obtained through computer matching agreements between HUD and a SWICA or Federal agency, or between a PHA and a SWICA, as described in paragraph (c) of this section. Certification that the applicable assistance applicants and participants have signed appropriate consent forms and have received the necessary Privacy Act notice is required, as follows: ( 1 ) When HUD requests the computer match, the processing entity shall certify to HUD; and
( 2 ) When the PHA requests the computer match, the PHA shall certify to the SWICA.
( b ) *Restrictions on use of information.* The restrictions of 42 U.S.C. 3544(c)(2)(A) apply to the use by HUD or a PHA of income information obtained from a SWICA. The restrictions of 42 U.S.C. 3544(c)(2)(A) and of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7) apply to the use by HUD or a PHA of income information obtained from the IRS or SSA.
( c ) *Computer matching agreements.* Computer matching agreements shall specify the purpose and the legal authority for the match, and shall include a description of the records to be matched, a statement regarding disposition of information generated through the match, a description of the administrative and technical safeguards to be used in protecting the information obtained through the match, a description of the use of records, the restrictions on duplication and redisclosure, a certification, and the amount that will be charged for processing a request.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2508-0008)