alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 418.306 Annual update of the payment rates and adjustment for area wage differences. ( a ) *Applicability.* CMS establishes payment rates for each of the categories of hospice care described in § 418.302(b). The rates are established using the methodology described in section 1814(i)(1)(C) of the Act and in accordance with section 1814(i)(6)(D) of the Act.
( b ) *Annual update of the payment rates.* The payment rates for routine home care and other services included in hospice care are the payment rates in effect under this paragraph during the previous fiscal year increased by the hospice payment update percentage increase (as defined in sections1814(i)(1)(C) of the Act), applicable to discharges occurring in the fiscal year. ( 1 ) For fiscal year 2014 and subsequent fiscal years, in accordance with section 1814(i)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, in the case of a Medicare-certified hospice that submits hospice quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the payment rates are equal to the rates for the previous fiscal year increased by the applicable hospice payment update percentage increase.
( 2 ) For fiscal years 2014 and through 2023, in accordance with section 1814(i)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, in the case of a Medicare-certified hospice that does not submit hospice quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the payment rates are equal to the rates for the previous fiscal year increased by the applicable hospice payment update percentage increase, minus 2 percentage points. Beginning with fiscal year 2024 and subsequent fiscal years, the reduction increases to 4 percentage points. Any reduction of the percentage change will apply only to the fiscal year involved and will not be taken into account in computing the payment amounts for a subsequent fiscal year.
( c ) *Adjustment for wage differences.* ( 1 ) Each hospice's labor market is determined based on definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) issued by OMB. CMS will issue annually, in the Federal Register, a hospice wage index based on the most current available CMS hospital wage data, including changes to the definition of MSAs. The urban and rural area geographic classifications are defined in § 412.64(b)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this chapter. The payment rates established by CMS are adjusted by the Medicare contractor to reflect local differences in wages according to the revised wage data.
( 2 ) Beginning on October 1, 2022, CMS applies a cap on decreases to the hospice wage index such that the wage index applied to a geographic area is not less than 95 percent of the wage index applied to that geographic area in the prior fiscal year.
( d ) *Federal Register notices.* CMS publishes as a notice in the Federal Register any proposal to change the methodology for determining the payment rates.
[56 FR 26919, June 12, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 26960, May 25, 1994; 62 FR 42882, Aug. 8, 1997; 70 FR 70548, Nov. 22, 2005; 73 FR 46486, Aug. 8, 2008; 79 FR 50509, Aug. 22, 2014; 80 FR 47207, Aug. 6, 2015; 86 FR 42605, Aug. 4, 2021; 87 FR 45702, July 29, 2022]
**Autism****Understanding the Problem**
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Salina A. FIELDS.

No. 63143.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Salina A. Fields, applying for supervisory writs and/or writs of certiorari and review. Parish of Caddo.

*913Writ not considered. Extension of time within which to apply was granted after time for filing had already expired.
Opinion issued June 23, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00161-CR

———————————

BRANDON ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1478854

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Brandon Robinson, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

robbery.

1

 The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at ten years 

 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011).
2

in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision 

for five years pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. Appellant filed a pro se notice 

of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 2006); TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the 

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. 

See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of 

appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who pleabargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal 

without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23



Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-1343) pertaining to the various stock incentive plans of Systems &
Computer Technology Corporation listed therein and in the related prospectus, in
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-43535) pertaining to the 1990
Employees' Stock Option Plan of Systems & Computer Technology Corporation and in
the related prospectus, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56528)
pertaining to the 401(k) Savings Plan of Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation and in the related prospectus, in the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8 No. 33-60831) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Incentive Plan and 
the 1994 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of Systems & Computer
Technology Corporation and in the related prospectus, and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37551) and related Prospectus of Systems & Computer
Technology Corporation for the registration of Convertible Subordinated
Debentures Due 2004, of our report dated October 24, 1997, except for Note I, as
to which the date is December 3, 1997, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule of Systems & Computer
Technology Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended September 30, 1997.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 17, 1997

                                       1
#### Ronald Roger GOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-216.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 4, 1981.

H. Michael Evans of Mosley & Evans, Clearwater, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael J. Kotler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and therefore affirm the judgment adjudicating him guilty of possession of marijuana and methaqualone. However, the single sentence of three years on both counts is an illegal general sentence and violates section 775.021, Florida Statutes (1979). *Fundak v. State,*362 So.2d 295 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); *Dorfman v. State,*351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977); *Darden v. State,*306 So.2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); *Darden v. State,*330 So.2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the sentence is vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing.

SCHEB, C. J., and BOARDMAN and OTT, JJ., concur.
# C_2006010EN.01001301.xml

| 14.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in proceedings between Georgios Alevizos and the Minister for Economic Affairs

(Case C-392/05)

(2006/C 10/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Georgios Alevizos and Minister for Economic Affairs on the following question:

Are civil servants and officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks of the armed forces, the public security forces and the harbour police corps covered, like other workers, by Article 6 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC and capable of acquiring ‘normal residence’ in another country where they live for at least 185 days in each calendar year in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration, or do they continue, even during the period of their assignment in the other country, to have their normal residence in Greece, irrespective of whether they have transferred their personal and occupational ties to the other country?

---
Exhibit 99.1


SafeGuard Health Enterprises, Inc.
95  Enterprise,  Suite  100
Aliso  Viejo,  CA  92656-2605
Tel:  (949)  425-4300
Fax:  (949)  425-4533


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002;
                          QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002


Each  of  the  undersigned  hereby  certifies  in  his capacity as an officer of
SafeGuard Health Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Quarterly Report of
the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition of the Company at the end of such
period  and  the  results  of  operations  of  the  Company  for  such  period.

Pursuant  to  the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of  1934, this certification has been signed by the undersigned in the City
of  Aliso  Viejo,  State  of  California,  on  the  13th  day  of  August  2002.


                 SAFEGUARD  HEALTH  ENTERPRISES,  INC.


                    By:  /s/ James E. Buncher
                        -------------------------------------
                        James  E.  Buncher
                        President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer
                        (Principal  Executive  Officer)


                    By:  /s/ Dennis L. Gates
                        -------------------------------------
                        Dennis  L.  Gates
                        Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                        (Chief  Accounting  Officer)


<PAGE>
#### In re ESTATE of Robert H. CAMPBELL. Elizabeth M. CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. BARNETT BANK OF HOLLYWOOD, Respondent.

No. 45189.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 288 So.2d 528.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN. and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### DAFFIN MERCANTILE COMPANY and Continental National American Group, Petitioners, v. Reimon STEPHENS, Jr. and Industrial Relations Commission, Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 45271.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 9, 1974.

Cause dismissed. 300 So.2d 266.
#### GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[53 C. Cls., 473 ; 252 U. S., 112.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

In settling with a railroad company under its current contract for mail transportation, the Postmaster General may deduct over-payments made under earlier contracts without waiting for their amount to be ascertained by suit.

The right of the United States to recover such overpayments is not barred by time.

The rule that a long-continued construction of a statute by a department of the Government should not readily be changed to the injury of parties who have relied upon it in contracting with the Government, does not apply to a long-continued practice of making overpayments, due to mistake of fact.

The obligation to carry the mail at the rates fixed by Congress attaches to a land-aided railroad like an easement or charge; a company purchasing under foreclosure takes the road with notice of the obligation; and its duty to perform is not affected by the fact that it received none of the land and obtained no benefit from the grant.

Where a railway-aid grant is made by act of Congress to a State with the provision that over the railway to be aided the mail shall be transported at such price as Congress may by law direct, a company which before completion of its road applies to the State for the land to aid in such completion, receives the State’s patent therefor, reciting that such is the purpose, and *514expressly assents to the terms and conditions of the granting act and proceeds to dispose of the land, is subject to the duty imposed, whether it was in fact aided by the grant in building its road or not; nor is its successor in any better position to question this effect of accepting. the grant when it acquires the first company’s property through a foreclosure to which that company’s interest in such lands was made subject as after-acquired property covered by the mortgage.

Where lands granted as railway-aid lands by Congress to a State are accepted by a railroad company and aid in the construction of its railroad, the obligation to carry the mails, as'stipulated in the granting act, attaches to the road so aided, however disproportionate the aid to the cost of construction, and this notwithstanding the company, in accepting the land and assuming the burden, may have relied upon other lands applied for at the same time and included in the same State patent, but which it lost through decisions of the State courts holding them inapplicable to its road under the granting act and the State law passed in pursuance of it.

In such case the obligation respecting the mails can not be escaped upon the ground that the contract between the company and the State, resting on an entire consideration, in part illegal, was void, where the United States was not a party to the contract and where its reversionary title was relinquished by Congress to the State.

Mr. Justice Brandéis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 1, 1920.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INFORMEDICS,
INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE PERIOD  ENDED JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                               259,154
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        408,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                          22,727
<INVENTORY>                                           20,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     823,993
<PP&E>                                               913,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                       760,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,270,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,492,795
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              26,503
<OTHER-SE>                                          (268,969)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,270,965
<SALES>                                              523,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,483,075
<CGS>                                                 98,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,519,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     4,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (576,415)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         688,025
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,264,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,264,440)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.520 Prompt payment by MA organization. ( a ) *Contract between CMS and the MA organization.* ( 1 ) The contract between CMS and the MA organization must provide that the MA organization will pay 95 percent of the “clean claims” within 30 days of receipt if they are submitted by, or on behalf of, an enrollee of an MA private fee-for-service plan or are claims for services that are not furnished under a written agreement between the organization and the provider.
( 2 ) The MA organization must pay interest on clean claims that are not paid within 30 days in accordance with sections 1816(c)(2)(B) and 1842(c)(2)(B).
( 3 ) All other claims from non-contracted providers must be paid or denied within 60 calendar days from the date of the request.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Contracts between MA organizations and providers and suppliers.* Contracts or other written agreements between MA organizations and providers must contain a prompt payment provision, the terms of which are developed and agreed to by both the MA organization and the relevant provider.
( 2 ) The MA organization is obligated to pay contracted providers under the terms of the contract between the MA organization and the provider.
( c ) *Failure to comply.* If CMS determines, after giving notice and opportunity for hearing, that an MA organization has failed to make payments in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, CMS may provide— ( 1 ) For direct payment of the sums owed to providers, or MA private fee-for-service plan enrollees; and
( 2 ) For appropriate reduction in the amounts that would otherwise be paid to the organization, to reflect the amounts of the direct payments and the cost of making those payments.
( d ) A CMS decision to not conduct a hearing under paragraph (c) of this section does not disturb any potential remedy under State law for 1866(a)(1)(O) of the Act.
[63 FR 35099, June 26, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 40328, June 29, 2000; 70 FR 4738, Jan. 28, 2005]
** **

**Exhibit 23.1   Consent of BKD, LLP.**

** **

** **

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

** **

** **

The Board of Directors

Princeton National Bancorp, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-69019, 333-117663, 333-129484, 333-153251 and 333-159570) on Form S-8 and 333-157451 on Form S-3 of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. of our reports dated March 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the three year period ended December 31, 2009.

/sig/ **BKD, LLP**

Decatur, Illinois

March 26, 2010

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAY-31-1996  
<PERIOD-START>                              JUN-01-1995  
<PERIOD-END>                                NOV-30-1995  
<CASH>                                            7,698
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   226,358  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     11,863
<INVENTORY>                                      12,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                261,965
<PP&E>                                          458,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                  289,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,261,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           955,976
<BONDS>                                               0
<COMMON>                                        243,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       61,729
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,261,493
<SALES>                                         151,548
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                242,711
<CGS>                                           126,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   126,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                617,319
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (501,339)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (503,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (503,739)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .10
        

</TABLE>