alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 396 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                  House Calendar No. 78
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 396

                          [Report No. 109-202]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2005

  Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
                                                  House Calendar No. 78

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 396

                          [Report No. 109-202]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
 bill (H.R. 2985) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
   the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 27, 2005

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.6 Maintenance of records.

Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the retention period specified by each Commission regulation. The record may be the original or a reproduced copy or a microform provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period. The record may also be stored in electronic media with the capability for producing legible, accurate, and complete records during the required retention period. Records such as letters, drawings, specifications, must include all pertinent information such as stamps, initials, and signatures. The licensee shall maintain adequate safeguards against tampering with and loss of records.

[53 FR 19244, May 27, 1988]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Melvin Oliver, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction rendered on February 4, 1969, sentencing defendant-appellant to State prison for a maximum term of 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding defendant to the sentencing Justice for resentenee. The record discloses that, though defendant was properly allocuted pursuant to the requirements of section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, neither he nor his counsel ever actually replied within the meaning of that section or section 481. Nothing contained in counsel’s plea for leniency constitutes substantial compliance of the sort described in *People ex rel. La Fay*v. *McMann*(33 A D 2d 1102). Further, it was called to the court’s attention that defendant had desired his counsel to move to withdraw the plea of guilty. In the circumstances, it was not proper summarily to cut off defendant’s application to this end without, at the very least, hearing a statement of the reasons therefor. Expedition of proceedings is commendable, but not when it may possibly result in deprivation of a right. This is not to pass on the merits of the application, for there is actually nothing relevant thereto to be found in the record. Concur—Eager, J. P.. Markewich, Tilzer and Bastow, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 79440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31858]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury published a document in the 
Federal Register on November 23, 2010, inviting comments on collections 
of information submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review. This document contained an incorrect reference.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 23, 2010, in FR Doc. 2010-
29493, make the following correction:
    <bullet> Page 71489, in the first column, under OMB Number: 1545-
0172, Estimated Total Burden Hours: replace ``1,671,337,275'' with 
``448,368,447''.

    Dated: December 13, 2010.
Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-31858 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 79 FR 75740, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 40.81 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
[57 FR 55074, Nov. 24, 1992]
#### EPSTEIN v. JOHN WANAMAKER, N. Y., et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Action by Annie Epstein against John Wanamaker, New York, and others.

No opinion. Motion granted by directing the pleadings and notice of appeal to be printed and annexed to the papers when printed by appellant Wanamaker so that both appeals can be heard together. Settle order on notice.
- Executive summary
- The prospective payment system in home health care
Figure 1. Clinical, functional, and service information from OASIS determines patients' home health case-mix classification and case-mix weight
Figure 2. Most beneficiaries had little or no problem accessing home health services, 2000–2003

- Descriptive analysis of agency characteristics, case mix, and margin
Figure 3. Distribution of Medicare margin by agency case mix, 2002 primary sample
Figure 3-A. Trimming the sample narrowed the margins' distribution
Table 1. Distribution of Medicare margins for home health agencies, 2002
Table 2. Distribution of case-mix score by agency size, 2002

- Multivariate analysis of margin
Table 3. Least-squares estimates of determinants of the payment-to-cost ratio

- Conclusion
- Discussion
- References
- Endnotes
- Appendix A: Mandate for report
- Appendix B: Data and methods
Data sources and file construction
- Table B-1. Home health agency sample used for report
Variable construction
Limitations of the analysis
- Table B-2. Variable definitions: Characteristics of home health patients

- More about MedPAC
<PAGE>


                                                                    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


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Greene County
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004 (the "Report"), I, William F. Richmond, Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:


         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


         (1)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                  /s/ William F. Richmond
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                     William F. Richmond
                                     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Assistant Secretary


Date:  May 7, 2004
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20004 Su m m ar y Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. W I LL I A M A N TO N I O Q U I N TA N I LL A

- Q U I N TA N I LL A , al so know n as W i l l i am Q ui nt ani l l a, al so know n as W i l l i am A nt oni o Q ui nt ani l l a, al so k now n as W i l l i am AQ u in ta n illa , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 8

- CR- 9 9

- ALL

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alPu bl i c D ef ender (F PD ) appoi nt ed t o r epr es ent W i l l i am Ant o n i o Qu i n t a n i l l a - Qu i n t a n i l l a m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o wi t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a br i e f i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d er s v . Ca lif o rn ia , 386 U
. S. 738 ( 1967)

. Q ui nt ani l l aQ u i n t an i l l a f

i l ed a response. T h ereaf t er, t h e F P D f

i l ed as sup pl em en t all et t er br i e f, a nd Qui nt anil l a- Q ui nt anil l a f i l e d no f

ur t he rre s po ns e . O uri nde pe nde nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20004

2 r e vi e w o f

the r e c o r d, c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f a nd s upp l e m e nt all e t t e rb r i e f, a nd Q u in ta n illa -Q u in ta n illa ’ s re s p o n s e d is c lo s e s n o n o n -fr iv o l o u s is s u e fo ra p p e a l. Q ui nt anil l a- Q ui nt anil l a’ s c l ai m o f dur e s s i s uns upp o r t e d bya ny e vi de nc e a nd contradi ct ed byt h e rec ord , a n d h is com pl ai n t s abou thi s s en t en ce do not r ai se a no n- f r ivo l o us i s s ue g ive n t he s t and ar d o f r e vi e w a nd t he co l l o quyi n t he r e c o r d. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G R A N T E D , co u n s e l is
e x c u s e df

r o m f u r t h e rr e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n dt h e AP P EA L I S DI S M I S S ED
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
#### Ryall *v.*The State.

*Indictment for Unlawful Sale of Spirituous Liquors.*

1. *Spirituous*liquors; *what articles are included in the term.*— Under an indictment charging an unlawful sale of spirituous liquors ((¡ode, § 4205; Mess. Acts 1880-81, p. 50), a conviction may be had on proof of a sale of “brandy peaches” and “brandy cherries,” put up in bottles, and preserved in'liquor which was spirituous and intoxicating.

From the Circuit Court of Marengo..

Tried before the Hon. Vn. E. Clarke.

Wji. H. Tayloe, for appellant.

Tiros. N. McClellan, Attorney-General, for the State.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The defendant, upon indictment, was convicted of selling spirituous liquors to a person of known intemperate habits, in violation of section 4205 of the present Code of Alabama, as amended by the act approved February 26, 1881. — Acts 1880-81, p. 50.

The evidence tended to show that defendant sold what is commonly known as “Brandy Peaches,” and “Brandy Cherries,” put up in bottles, and preserved in liquor which was spirituous and intoxicating.

The court charged the jury that, upon this state of facts, if they believed this phase of the evidence, they might find the defendant guilty, as charged in the indictment,

*411We see no error in this ruling. The case falls fully within the letter of the statute, as well as within the mischief intended to be remedied by it. If spirituous and intoxicating liquor was sold, as the evidence tended to prove, there was no proof offered to show that it was rendered any the less noxious in its stimulating and inebriating qualities by the fact that fruit was mixed with it at the time of the sale. If persons were allowed to escape the penalty of this statute, by merely adding some other article or ingredient to intoxicating liquors, when made the subject of traffic, it is obvious that the law could be evaded with the greatest facility by any person who desired it. Snch a construction would practically operate to repeal the statute.

The judgment of conviction was proper, ancl must be affirmed.
exhibit1030.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.30

     

    SUMMARY
OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR

    NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS

     

    The
following is a summary of the standard compensation arrangements for the
non-employee members of the Board of Directors of St. Mary Land &
Exploration Company (the “Company”) for 2009.

     

    For
service for the fiscal period from May 20, 2009, through approximately May 26,
2010, the total annual target base compensation for each non-employee director
is $160,000.  The non-executive Chairman of the Board receives an
additional $60,000 retainer for his service as Chairman, making his total annual
compensation $220,000.  This base compensation is in the form of
restricted stock.  The market price on the date of grant determines
the number of shares that are issued to the director.  The grants vest
over the one-year Board service period and carry a one-year holding period
restriction following the expiration of the vesting period as imposed by the
Company.  In addition to the base compensation, the Board members are
paid meeting attendance fees and committee chairpersons are paid an additional
cash retainer.

    


    The
meeting attendance fees paid to the non-employee directors is as
follows:

    


    1.          Payment
of $750 for each Board meeting attended.

     

    2.   Directors
serving on a committee are paid $600 for each committee meeting attended and
$375 for each telephonic committee meeting.

     

    3.   Directors
are reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending Board and committee
meetings.

     

    The
committee chairs will receive the following cash payments in recognition of the
additional workload of their respective committee assignments.  These
amounts are to be paid at the beginning of the annual service
period.

    


    1.           Audit
Committee - $15,000

    


    2.           Compensation
Committee - $10,000

    


    3.           Nominating
and Corporate Governance Committee - $5,000
#### § 460.1 Scope.

This subpart establishes energy conservation standards for manufactured homes as manufactured at the factory, prior to distribution in commerce for sale or installation in the field. Manufacturers must apply the requirements of this part to a manufactured home subject to § 460.4(b) that is manufactured on or after 60 days after publication of final enforcement procedures for this part. DOE will amend this section to include the specific compliance date, once known. Manufacturers must apply the requirements of this part to a manufactured home subject to § 460.4(c) that is manufactured on or after July 1, 2025.

[88 FR 34419, May 30, 2023]
PGI 247.200 Scope of subpart.

For general cargo provisions, see DTR 4500.9-R, Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR), Part II,

Chapter 201, paragraphs L, M, N, and S (available at

http://www.transcom.mil/dtr/part-ii/dtr_part_ii_201.pdf).

Parent topic: PGI 247.2 -CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OR FOR TRANSPORTATIONRELATED SERVICES
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 45690 & 45691

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

WYATT TRIPP ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: September 11, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four year s , for felony fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and consecutive unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for grand theft, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P . Waldron , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for responden t.

________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Wyatt Tripp pled guilty to felony fleeing or attempting to

elude a peace officer , I.C. § 49

- 1404(2)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d); and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18

- 2403(1)

and 18

- 2407(1) (b)(4). In exchange for his guilty plea s , additional charges were dismissed

including an allegation that he i s a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Tripp to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four year s , for felony

fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and a consecutive unified term of fourteen years,2 with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for grand theft

. Tripp filed I.C.R. 35

motion s for reduction of his sentences , whi ch the district court denied. Tripp appeals

, arguing

that the district court erred in ordering that his sentences be served consecutively and that his

sentence for grand theft is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Bot h our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Tripp ’s judgment s of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen E. Miller, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 314]

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), rendered March 28, 2005, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether defendant’s prison sentence of 1 to 3 years for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is harsh and excessive. Upon review of the record, we find that it is not. Defendant agreed to the sentence in accordance with the negotiated plea bargain *(see People v Smith,*263 AD2d 676, 677 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1027 [1999]; *People v Walters,*216 AD2d 611, 612 [1995]). Moreover, there is no indication that County Court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence, nor are there any extraordinary *1034circumstances present that would warrant a modification thereof *(see People v Wallis,*24 AD3d 1029, 1033 [2005]; *People v McCarthy,*23 AD3d 919, 919-920 [2005]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the sentence.

Peters, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### § 1303.115 Preservation of records.

The Board shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this part, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized by title 44 of the United States Code or the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 14. Records will not be disposed of while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No. 04-08-00647- CV IN THE M AT TER

OF THE E STA TE OF JOH N R OBER T BON NE R , Dec ease d Fr om the Probate Court No. 2, B exar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-PC-1878 Honora ble Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin , J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J anuar y 28, 2009 DI SMI SSED After this court g rante d appellant Michel l e L . Valice k two extensions of ti me, appe llant’s br ie f w a s du e on De c e mbe r 1, 20 08
. No a pp e lla nt’ s br ie f o r a dd iti on a l mo tio n f or e xten sio n o f t ime has bee n filed. On De cember 30, 2008, this court orde red a ppellant to show ca

use in writing by J anuar y 9, 2009, why

this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosec ution. Appellant did not respond. The appea l is there fore dismiss ed for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a) (1), 42 .3 (b ). Cos ts o f a

pp e a l a re ta xed

a g a ins t a pp e lla nt.

PER C URI AM
PGI 232.501-2 Unusual progress payments.

Unusual progress payment arrangements require the advance approval of the Principal Director,

Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC). Contracting officers must submit all unusual progress

payment requests to the department or agency contract financing office for approval and submission

to OUSD(A&S) DPC.

Parent topic: PGI 232.501 General.
Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 6 Filed 08/30/2006 Page 1 of 1