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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1780 

To provide that the only health plans that the Federal Government may 

make available to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, 

and Federal employees are those created under the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act or offered through a health insurance exchange. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BRADY of Texas, 

Mr. NUNES, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. SCHOCK, and Mr. ROSKAM) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and 

Commerce and House Administration, 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 provide that the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and Federal employees are 

those created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or offered through a health insurance 

exchange. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1780 IH

1 SECTION 1. HEALTH PLANS CREATED UNDER PPACA OR 

2 OFFERED THROUGH EXCHANGES TO BE 

3 ONLY HEALTH PLANS FEDERAL GOVERN4 MENT MAY MAKE AVAILABLE TO PRESIDENT, 

5 VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, 

6 AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. 

7 Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and 

8 Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(D)) is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking 

11 ‘‘MEMBERS OF CONGRESS’’ and inserting ‘‘PRESI12 DENT, VICE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, 

13 AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’’; 

14 (2) in clause (i), in the matter preceding sub15 clause (I)— 

16 (A) by striking ‘‘Members of Congress and 

17 congressional staff’’ and inserting ‘‘the Presi18 dent, Vice President, Members of Congress, and 

19 Federal employees’’; and 

20 (B) by striking ‘‘a Member of Congress or 

21 congressional staff’’ and inserting ‘‘the Presi22 dent, the Vice President, a Member of Con23 gress, or a Federal employee’’; and 

24 (3) in clause (ii), by amending subclause (II) to 

25 read as follows: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1780 IH

1 ‘‘(II) FEDERAL EMPLOYEE.—The 

2 term ‘Federal employee’ means— 

3 ‘‘(aa) an ‘employee’, as such 

4 term is defined in section 2105 of 

5 title 5, United States Code; and 

6 ‘‘(bb) includes an individual 

7 to whom subsection (c) or (f) of 

8 such section 2105 pertains 

9 (whether or not such individual 

10 satisfies item (aa)).’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 1273 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 194 - AD
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATION




I,
Dongliang (Frank) Su, certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jpak Group,
Inc.;
  2. Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;
  3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;
  4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the small business issuer and
have:
  (a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
   
 (c) evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
  (d) disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
  5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
  (b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date: February
17, 2009




/s/
      Dongliang (Frank) SuDongliang
      (Frank) SuActing
      Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Lee Vick, Appellant.

— Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to eliminate the minimum sentence and reduce the maximum to four years and otherwise judgment affirmed, without prejudice to defendant’s moving pursuant to CPL 440.10 (subd 1, par [e]) to vacate the judgment. (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court— burglary, second degree.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Appellant. JJ.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: New Efforts to Combat Exploitative Child Labor      

# Resource: New Efforts to Combat Exploitative Child Labor

As the challenge of child labor exploitation — particularly of migrant children — increases nationwide, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services are announcing the following actions to increase their efforts to thoroughly vet sponsors of migrant children, investigate child labor violations, and hold the companies accountable:
                  - A DOL-led Interagency Taskforce to Combat Child Labor Exploitation
                  - A National Strategic Enforcement Initiative on Child Labor
                  - Hold All Employers Accountable
                  - Mandated Follow Up Calls for Unaccompanied Children Who Report Safety Concerns
                  - Expand Post Release Services for Unaccompanied Children
                  - Increased Funding for DOL’s Enforcement Agencies
                  - Call on Congress to Increase Civil Monetary Penalties for Companies that Use Child Labor
                  - Audit ORR Sponsor Vetting Process
                  - New Training Material for Unaccompanied Children to Know Their Rights

**Learn more.**
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28473]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-29-003]


Enbridge Pipelines (North Texas) L.P.; Notice of Baseline Filing

November 4, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 3, 2010, Enbridge Pipelines (North 
Texas) L.P. submitted a revised baseline filing of its Statement of 
Operating Conditions for services provided under section 311 of the 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or 
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing 
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="692f2c3b2a26070500070c3a1c1919061b1d290f0c1b0a470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 15, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28473 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Julius B. Davenport, Deceased. Chase Manhattan Bank, as Trustee, Respondent; Daniel Eisenberg, as Special Guardian for Richard S. Barnes, Jr., and Others, Infants, Appellant.

In a proceeding for the judicial settlement of a trustee’s account, the special guardian of infant contingent remaindermen of two trusts for the benefit of Jeanette D. Barnes appeals, as limited by his brief, from those parts of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, entered June 2, 1966, which (a) approve the trustee’s allocation to the income account of each trust 210 shares, and to the principal account of each trust 150 shares, of the common stock of General Electric Company and (b) allow principal and income com*753missions to the trustee, insofar as they are based upon the aforesaid stock allocation. Decree reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs to the parties filing separate briefs, payable out of the income accounts of the two trust estates herein involved, and proceeding remitted to the court below for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. The trusts herein involved were created under a will executed in 1917. The will contained no provision for the allocation of stock distributions between principal and income of the trusts. Hence, the “ intact value ” principle of *Matter of Osborne*(209 N. Y. 450) applies to stock distributions on the shares held by these trusts at the time o£ their creation. When these trusts were created in 1926, each of them held 7% shares of General Electric stock; the “intrinsic value” or “intact value” of those shares computed in the manner outlined in *Osborne (supra)*was $1,107.15. By reason of a number of intervening stock splits, in 1954 each trust held 120 shares of this stock, all in its principal account. In 1954 General Electric made a 3 for 1 stock distribution, so that each trust received 360 new shares in place of the 120 old ones that it previously held. The “intrinsic value” of each of these 360 new shares, again computed in the manner outlined in *Osborne,*was $5. Hence, to maintain the “intact value” of the principal of each trust, namely $1,107.15, 221.43 of the 360 new shares in each trust must be allocated to its principal account, with the balance of 138.57 shares allocated to its income account. Further, the principal and income commissions must be recalculated accordingly. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Babin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T22:46:38-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

October 27, 2010

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Mr. Paylor:

On September 29, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 

This revision consists of a regulation (9VAC5 Chapter 30) that contains the ambient air quality standards 

set out in 40 CFR Part 50. The submittal added a lead standard of 1.5 μg/m3and related reference 

conditions, as well as updated the list of appendices to 40 CFR Part 51 for documents incorporated by

reference, 9VAC5-20-21. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at 215- 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division
----

----

|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      December 8, 2008                                                                       |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|  /s/      Yijun Wang                                                                          |   |   |   |
| Yijun      WangChief      Executive Officer, President, Director(Principal      Executive Officer) |

----
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptimized resolved rate control of seven-degree-of-freedom Laboratory Telerobotic Manipulator (LTM) with application to three-dimensional graphics simulationThe Laboratory Telerobotic Manipulator (LTM) is a seven-degree-of-freedom robot arm. Two of the arms were delivered to Langley Research Center for ground-based research to assess the use of redundant degree-of-freedom robot arms in space operations. Resolved-rate control equations for the LTM are derived. The equations are based on a scheme developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for computing optimized joint angle rates in real time. The optimized joint angle rates actually represent a trade-off, as the hand moves, between small rates (least-squares solution) and those rates which work toward satisfying a specified performance criterion of joint angles. In singularities where the optimization scheme cannot be applied, alternate control equations are devised. The equations developed were evaluated using a real-time computer simulation to control a 3-D graphics model of the LTM.Document ID19900001302Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsBarker, L. Keith*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Mckinney, William S., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1989Subject CategoryCyberneticsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-2938L-16562NAS 1.60:2938Accession Number90N10618Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 549-02-41-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001302.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6278** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. PAUL RAYMOND GREEN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:09

- cr - 00230

- AW

- 1; 8:10

- cv - 02749

- AW )

Submitted : June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam o pinion
. Paul Raymond Green, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Dunsay Silver, Lisa J. Stark, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Paul Raymond Green se eks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A cer tificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies rel ief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. Because Green failed to ch allenge on appeal the district court’s timeliness ruling, we conclude that he 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 conte ntions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1 

### Soruco, Antonio (CONTR)

From: Soruco, Antonio (CONTR)

Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 6:30 PM

To: 'Marlenegreenberg@sbcglobal.net'

Subject: Northern States 90 Percent AFUE Furnaces effective 5/1/2013

Thank you for your October 31, 2012 email to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) concerning residential furnaces.

Your email has been forwarded to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program

(BTP), and this is our response.

Your letter has been forwarded to the regional standards rulemaking docket and will be considered as part of the

rulemaking process.

As of May 1, 2013, all non

‐ weatherized residential furnaces installed in the northern region must be 90% AFUE. The

energy conservations standards for furnaces are in the Code of Federal Regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(e)

.

To stay current with developments for residential HVAC products, please visit and bookmark the residential furnaces

and boilers webpage and the central air conditioners and heat pumps webpage

.

There is a regional enforcement rulemaking for furnaces currently under way. Please see the notice

. The Department

welcomes comments for the docket from the public. You can submit comments to the docket via www.regulations.gov

.

The residential non

‐ weatherized furnace energy conservation standards are also the subject of a lawsuit (American

Public Gas Association v. United States Department of Energy, Case No. 11

‐ 1485) being heard in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Whether any construction work might be needed to install the furnace depends on the characteristics of the building.

Thank you for your interest in energy efficiency. Should you have further questions, please contact Ashley Armstrong,

BTP’s Certification and Enforcement manager via email: ashley.armstrong@ee.doe.gov or 202

‐ 586

‐ 6590. You may also

contact Laura Barhydt of the Office of General Counsel via email: laura.barhydt@hq.doe.gov or 202

‐ 287

‐ 5772.

Sincerely,

Antonio Soruco

Energetics Incorporated

Under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy | Building Technologies Program

202-586-2540

antonio.soruco@ee.doe.gov