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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3392

To require a separate, unclassified statement of the aggregate amount of

budget outlays for intelligence activities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 6, 1996

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. MILLER of California, and Mr. BROWN of

California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 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 require a separate, unclassified statement of the

aggregate amount of budget outlays for intelligence activities.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Intelligence Budget

5 Accountability Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

7 It is the purpose of this Act to require the publication

8 of the aggregate intelligence budget figure to provide a
2

•HR 3392 IH

1 more thorough accounting of Government expenditures as

2 required by article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitu3 tion.

4 SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

5 The Congress finds that—

6 (1) article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitu7 tion states that ‘‘No Money shall be drawn from the

8 Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations

9 made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account

10 of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public

11 Money shall be published from time to time.’’;

12 (2) during the Cold War the United States did

13 not provide to the American people a ‘‘regular State14 ment and Account of the . . . Expenditures’’ for

15 intelligence activities;

16 (3) the failure to provide to the American peo17 ple a statement of the total amount of expenditures

18 on intelligence activities prevents them from partici19 pating in an informed, democratic decision concern20 ing the appropriate level for such expenditures; and

21 (4) the Report of the Commission on the Roles

22 and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence

23 Community recommended the disclosure of ‘‘the

24 total amount of money appropriated for intelligence
3

•HR 3392 IH

1 activities during the current fiscal year and the total

2 amount being requested for the next fiscal year’’.

3 SEC. 4. ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF

4 INTELLIGENCE EXPENDITURES FOR THE

5 PRECEDING FISCAL YEAR.

6 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is

7 amended by adding at the end thereof the following new

8 paragraph:

9 ‘‘(32) a separate, unclassified statement of the

10 appropriations and proposed appropriations for the

11 current fiscal year, and the amount of appropria12 tions requested for the fiscal year for which the

13 budget is submitted, for national and tactical intel14 ligence activities, including activities carried out

15 under the budget of the Department of Defense to

16 collect, analyze, produce, disseminate, or support the

17 collection of intelligence.’’.

Æ
#### § 435.1100 Basis for presumptive eligibility.

This subpart implements sections 1920, 1920A, 1920B, 1920C, and 1902(a)(47)(B) of the Act.

[81 FR 86460, Nov. 30, 2016]
HomeU.S. Military–Marine Security Guard...Gregory Weber

# 									Gregory Weber							

DS Memorial

June 19, 1985

		Diplomatic Security Memorial		

**U.S. Military—Marine Security Guard****Year of Death: 1985**

Sgt. Gregory H. Weber, Marine Security Guard, died on June 19, 1985, in San Salvador, El Salvador. He was shot by leftist guerrillas. His hometown is Cincinnati, Ohio.

**Photo: U.S. Government image**

Tags

DS Military Marine SecurityEl Salvador

Back to Top
§ 425.104 Legal entity. ( a ) An ACO must be a legal entity, formed under applicable State, Federal, or Tribal law, and authorized to conduct business in each State in which it operates for purposes of the following: ( 1 ) Receiving and distributing shared savings.
( 2 ) Repaying shared losses or other monies determined to be owed to CMS.
( 3 ) Establishing, reporting, and ensuring provider compliance with health care quality criteria, including quality performance standards.
( 4 ) Fulfilling other ACO functions identified in this part.
( b ) An ACO formed by two or more ACO participants, each of which is identified by a unique TIN, must be a legal entity separate from any of its ACO participants.
( c ) An ACO formed by a single ACO participant may use its existing legal entity and governing body, provided it satisfies the other requirements in §§ 425.104 and 425.106.
[76 FR 67973, Nov. 2, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 32834, June 9, 2015]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 9, 2019

No. 04

- 1 9

- 00366

- CR

April OROSCO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR5505

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State

, 924 S .W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). On November 22, 2019, appellant filed the form motion requesting a copy of the appellate record.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for a copy of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so by January 23, 2019. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);

Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same)._________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of December, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
§ 435.225 Individuals under age 19 who would be eligible for Medicaid if they were in a medical institution. ( a ) The agency may provide Medicaid to children 18 years of age or younger who qualify under section 1614(a) of the Act, who would be eligible for Medicaid if they were in a medical institution, and who are receiving, while living at home, medical care that would be provided in a medical institution.
( b ) If the agency elects the option provided by paragraph (a) of this section, it must determine, in each case, that the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The child requires the level of care provided in a hospital, SNF, or ICF.
( 2 ) It is appropriate to provide that level of care outside such an institution.
( 3 ) The estimated Medicaid cost of care outside an institution is no higher than the estimated Medicaid cost of appropriate institutional care.
( c ) The agency must specify in its State plan the method by which it determines the cost-effectiveness of caring for disabled children at home.
[55 FR 48608, Nov. 21, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CRAIG ARNOLD SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:04-cr-00235-RWT-18)

Submitted: August 24, 2015 Decided: August 27, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Arnold Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mara Zusman 

Greenberg, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig Arnold Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an 

unauthorized, successive motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 relief 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Scott 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

§ 422.118 Confidentiality and accuracy of enrollee records. For any medical records or other health and enrollment information it maintains with respect to enrollees, an MA organization must establish procedures to do the following: ( a ) Abide by all Federal and State laws regarding confidentiality and disclosure of medical records, or other health and enrollment information. The MA organization must safeguard the privacy of any information that identifies a particular enrollee and have procedures that specify— ( 1 ) For what purposes the information will be used within the organization; and
( 2 ) To whom and for what purposes it will disclose the information outside the organization.
( b ) Ensure that medical information is released only in accordance with applicable Federal or State law, or pursuant to court orders or subpoenas.
( c ) Maintain the records and information in an accurate and timely manner.
( d ) Ensure timely access by enrollees to the records and information that pertain to them.
[65 FR 40323, June 29, 2000]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases…Inaugural Plenary Meeting of States Endorsing the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy

# 											Inaugural Plenary Meeting of States Endorsing the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy									

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

March 19, 2024

The United States is pleased to host the inaugural plenary meeting of States endorsing the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.  We and our partners are committed to harnessing the benefits of AI while mitigating the risks in the military domain.  The work done this week in College Park, Maryland, will catalyze concrete, actionable pathways for implementing the measures reflected in the Political Declaration.  Together we are shaping the tech future for the benefit of us all, for the benefit of humanity.

Tags

Artificial IntelligenceBureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and StabilityMarylandOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50727

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ-BARRIENTOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-93-1

Before DAVIS, COSTA and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Carlos MartinezBarrientos raises an as-applied constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) 

that is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). 

The Supreme Court held in Almendarez-Torres that the fact of a prior 

conviction that increases a defendant’s statutory sentencing exposure is a 

sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense that requires a finding 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50727 Document: 00514519166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
No. 17-50727

2

by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 235, 239. Accordingly, the 

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative 

motion for an extension of time to file an appellee’s brief is DENIED as moot.

 Case: 17-50727 Document: 00514519166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2018
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23.1

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Quarterdeck Corporation:

           We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-96064, No. 333-04606, and No. 333-10269) on Form S-3, the
registration statement (No. 33-98456) on Form S-4 and the Registration
statements (No. 333-01766 and No. 333-04602) on Form S-8 of Quarterdeck
Corporation of our report dated November 22, 1996, except as to the last
paragraph of Note 13, which is as of December 19, 1996, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Quarterdeck Corporation and subsidiaries as of
September 30, 1996, and 1995 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended September 30, 1996, and the related schedule, which
report appears in the September 30, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of
Quarterdeck Corporation.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Los Angeles, California
December 27, 1996


                                       73
#### Dale McCLAIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 6, 1979.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD,* C. J., and HEN-DRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

*

 Judge Havertield participated in the Order on Mandate in this cause but not in the decision.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on February 8,1977 (341 So.2d 1075) affirming the judgment and sentence of the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December 21, 1978 and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment with directions.

NOW, THEREFORE, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 24, 1977 is withdrawn the judgment of this court filed in this cause on February 8, 1977 is vacated and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. The judgment and sentence appealed from herein is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to vacate the sentence for display of a firearm during commission of a felony. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 9.400(a) Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure).
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1300V

UNPUBLISHED

BRENDA KEARNS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 22, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

Petitioner.

Matthew Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On August 27, 2019, Brenda Kearns filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving the influenza vaccine on October 24, 2018. 

Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of 

Special Masters.

On March 22, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at

1. Specifically, Respondent has concluded “that [P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(QAI).” Id. at 6. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 23.01


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-97988 and 333-36025) and in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-26599,
333-36023 and 333-46997) of Silicon Valley Research, Inc. of our report dated
June 12, 1998 appearing on page 19 of this Form 10-K.



/s/ PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


San Jose, California
June 29, 1998
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...International Cooperation in NASA’s Artemis I Program

# 									International Cooperation in NASA’s Artemis I Program							

Fact Sheet

Office of the Spokesperson

November 16, 2022

NASA’s Artemis program is inspiring the world as it seeks to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon and conduct a historic first crewed mission to Mars.

The Artemis program, comprising a series of robotic and crewed science and exploration missions, is intended to be the broadest and most diverse international human space exploration coalition in history.  Key international participation in the Artemis I mission includes:
        - European Space Agency  (ESA): The European Space Agency provides the European Service Module (ESM) for the Orion spacecraft, located below the crew module.
        - German Aerospace Center  (DLR) &  Israel Space Agency  (ISA): DLR and ISA are providing the MARE (Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment).  Two female phantom torsos equipped with radiation sensors, named Helga and Zohar, are flying in the Orion crew vehicle to measure the effects of radiation.
        - Italian Space Agency  (ASI): ASI is providing the ArgoMoon CubeSat which will demonstrate performing operations in close proximity of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) and record images of the ICPS during flight.
        - Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency  (JAXA): JAXA is providing two CubeSats: EQUULEUS (Equilibrium Lunar-Earth point 6U Spacecraft), which will measure the radiation environment around Earth, and OMOTENASHI (Outstanding Moon exploration Technologies demonstrated by Nano Semi-Hard Impactor), a lunar impactor that will demonstrate small lunar landing technology. A successful landing will mark Japan as the fourth nation to successfully land on the Moon.

In addition, the Artemis I mission will receive communications and navigation support through the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex (CDSCC) in Australia and the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex (MDSCC) in Spain.  Deep space communications have been an international effort since the Apollo program and we’re proud to continue these longstanding relationships with Australia and Spain for the Artemis missions.

For media inquiries, please contact OES-PA-DG@state.gov.

Tags

Artemis AccordsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsOffice of Space AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonScience, Technology, and InnovationSpace

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

Dec em ber 1 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Dec em ber 1 , 2017

15 662 2 ( 57 )

W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, d/b/a

ALLEGIANCE HEALTH

, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 15 662 2

v C OA: 3 33360

Kent CC: 15

- 008218

- NF

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN and

MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PLACEMENT FACILITY

, Defendant s

- Appellee s

, and

JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendants

- appellees to extend the

time for filing a n answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The

answer submitted on November 15, 2017, is accepted for filing.