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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3220 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3220

 To provide for the opportunity for the families of murder victims to 
                 attend the execution of the murderers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1996

Mr. Salmon (for himself and Mr. Stearns) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the opportunity for the families of murder victims to 
                 attend the execution of the murderers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Victim's Family's Access to Justice 
Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO STATE CASES.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) each State should make the death penalty an option for 
        the sentencing of murderers; and
            (2) each State should permit the adult members of the 
        family of a victim of murder to attend the execution of the 
        murderer.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL CASES.

    Section 3596 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Attendance at Execution.--The Attorney General shall permit 
adult members of the family of a murder victim to attend the execution 
of the murderer, and may permit the attendance of other persons. As 
used in this subsection, the term `adult members of the family' 
includes a spouse, adult child, parent, grandparent, and adult 
sibling.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MERRILL v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK et al.

No. 7283.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 22, 1935.

Sam R. Merrill, of Houston, Tex., for appellant.

Will C. Thompson and Robert Lee Guthrie, both of .Dallas, Tex., for appel-lees.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY,' . and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict directed for appellee, defendant below, in a suit to recover on a policy of fire insurance. Error is assigned thereto.

The case was submitted on a stipulation as to the facts. From that it appears appellee had issued a fire policy to the then owners covering a one-story brick building in Houston, Tex., up to the amount of $4,000, running for three years, from September 25, 1926. The property was sold and conveyed to appellant on July 23, 1929. The same day, in response to a request over the telephone from his agent, the insurer’s agent agreed to assign and transfer the policy to appellant. The policy was so indorsed and mailed to him the next day. • On that date, July 24, 1929; the property was totally destroyed by fire. The policy contained a provision Voiding it if gasoline in a quantity exceeding 25 pounds in weight, about 200’‘gallons, was stored in the building. The Etheridge Process Corporation had been a;tenant in the building for a number of years and continued as a- tenant, of appellant. The- building was in use as- a plant for the manufacture of paint, in the making of which- gasoline was used At the time of the-fire 16-. drums of gasoline, each containing 55 gallons, more than four times the quantity permitted, were stored in the building, which gasoline contributed to the fire. The storage of large quantities of gasoline in the building was open and notorious and could have been easily discovered by inspection. Neither appellant nor appellee had made inquiry and neither had actual knowledge of the storage of an excess quantity of gasoline in the building.

It may be conceded, as contended by appellant, that the assignment of the policy, was equivalent to the issuance of a new policy, and appellee was estopped to set up any violations occurring before that time, but that is immaterial. The insurer was under no obligation to make inquiry.before assigning the policy and only actual knowledge of a violation of the provision of the policy, occurring thereafter, could work an estop.pel. On the other hand, the insured was chargeable with any violation of the gasoline provision by his tenant, whether he actually .knew of it or not. As the violation continued after the policy was assigned and was material to the risk, appellant was

not entitled to recover. Gunther v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 134 U. S. 110, 10 S. Ct. 448, 33 L. Ed. 857; Kelly v. Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 97 Mass. 284; Ellis v. State Insurance Co., 68 Iowa, 578, 27 N. W. 762, 56 Am. Rep. 865; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Holcomb, 89 Tex. 404, 34 S. W. 915; Miller v. Am. Eagle F. Ins. Co., 253 N. Y. 64, 170 N. E. 495.

The record presents no reversible error.

Affirmed.
12-Jt-1'1 ·

### ~'I:)J-o 

# . RECEIVED JN ::::()

### ~3j**-oyi~** COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS - 0 L, JAN 14 2015



## l, fAIL 

### or 

## J.r ; f.}"' 

### oL 

# rf! <.'fj +o
. 

# *""'' /";1- i A

.. 

### II- t:J?

### ;-~ 

## C••"';;;f k' fJ..o/e. 

### J 

## c •o.v,d, "if



## . -/v f)_€ 

### fow+o -f

## Lr:"'.~"'l**A;;~JJ,** 

# I-t)w Cwld

## /&_~, 

# ::_ -fdr_, """ 1

## ~"-' d/< '"

.



### (d,'/foi+A•,...**~"'-** fl.e<r

### (D/I•Jf""~?' 

### wr,i:#r j_

### vldcJ/'€"'t;j:;YI""·~**·d,** .f;'rt ( e!'e 

## !;_; ,/;d/\t; L-.
.. 

### lLL.-CA../VIf 

# # I6J1· !fJ. 

### 7 

### /o ber+ fo"' ul'") ;·f**I'd.~"?-/** f. _M. 1 JJJ

### ;//;,'/~~~ 7X 

### 71£() I
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John Norman KENT.

No. 63723.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 22, 1979.

In re State of Louisiana applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Frank Foil, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 5th day of March, 1979, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the rela*908tor herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
# C_2005179EN.01000101.xml

| 21.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 July 2005

(2005/C 179/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2063 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,35 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4628 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69430 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4220 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5632 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,48 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9610 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5738 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,224 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,36 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1477 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5572 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,50 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,151 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6085 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6002 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4668 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3834 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7815 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0350 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 257,57 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0613 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9840 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2998 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 876,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,584 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,312 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,5990 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,737 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2063

JPY

Japanese yen

136,35

DKK

Danish krone

7,4628

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69430

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4220

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5632

ISK

Iceland króna

78,48

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9610

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5738

CZK

Czech koruna

30,224

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,36

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1477

RON

Romanian leu

3,5572

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,50

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,151

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6085

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6002

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4668

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3834

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7815

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0350

KRW

South Korean won

1 257,57

ZAR

South African rand

8,0613

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9840

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2998

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 876,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,584

PHP

Philippine peso

67,312

RUB

Russian rouble

34,5990

THB

Thai baht

50,737

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
- Home
- Travel
- Remarks and Releases

HomeDeputy Secretary of State...Deputy Secretary of State’s Travel

# 						Deputy Secretary of State’s Travel					

							The Deputy Secretary of State travels far and wide to serve the American people. She is the principal deputy, adviser, and alter ego to the Secretary of State and assists the Secretary in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy—including through face-to-face diplomacy abroad.						

15 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAlgeriaAngolaArgentinaAustraliaBelgiumCambodiaChinaCzech RepublicDominican RepublicEgyptFranceGabonGermanyHoly SeeIndiaIndonesiaItalyJapanLaosMexicoMongoliaMoroccoNew ZealandOmanPakistanPeruPhilippinesSamoaSolomon IslandsSouth AfricaSouth KoreaSpainSwitzerlandTongaTurkeyUnited KingdomUruguayUzbekistanVietnam

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary of State

          -    		Travel to Switzerland and Belgium, January 8-13, 2022	   
          -    		Travel to Uruguay and Peru, November 7-11, 2021	   
          -    		Travel to Switzerland, Uzbekistan, India, and Pakistan, September 29 – October 8, 2021	   
          -    		Travel to Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the People’s Republic of China, and Oman, July 18-27, 2021	   
          -    		Travel to Belgium, Turkey, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Hawaii, May 25 – June 4, 2021	   

previous page12

Back to Top
§ 433.56 Classes of health care services and providers defined. ( a ) For purposes of this subpart, each of the following will be considered as a separate class of health care items or services: ( 1 ) Inpatient hospital services;
( 2 ) Outpatient hospital services;
( 3 ) Nursing facility services (other than services of intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities);
( 4 ) Intermediate care facility services for individuals with intellectual disabilities, and similar services furnished by community-based residences for individuals with intellectual disabilities, under a waiver under section 1915(c) of the Act, in a State in which, as of December 24, 1992, at least 85 percent of such facilities were classified as ICF/IIDs prior to the grant of the waiver;
( 5 ) Physician services;
( 6 ) Home health care services;
( 7 ) Outpatient prescription drugs;
( 8 ) Services of managed care organizations (including health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations);
( 9 ) Ambulatory surgical center services, as described for purposes of the Medicare program in section 1832(a)(2)(F)(i) of the Social Security Act. These services are defined to include facility services only and do not include surgical procedures;
( 10 ) Dental services;
( 11 ) Podiatric services;
( 12 ) Chiropractic services;
( 13 ) Optometric/optician services;
( 14 ) Psychological services;
( 15 ) Therapist services, defined to include physical therapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, respiratory therapy, audiological services, and rehabilitative specialist services;
( 16 ) Nursing services, defined to include all nursing services, including services of nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, and private duty nurses;
( 17 ) Laboratory and x-ray services, defined as services provided in a licensed, free-standing laboratory or x-ray facility. This definition does not include laboratory or x-ray services provided in a physician's office, hospital inpatient department, or hospital outpatient department;
( 18 ) Emergency ambulance services; and
( 19 ) Other health care items or services not listed above on which the State has enacted a licensing or certification fee, subject to the following: ( i ) The fee must be broad based and uniform or the State must receive a waiver of these requirements;
( ii ) The payer of the fee cannot be held harmless; and
( iii ) The aggregate amount of the fee cannot exceed the State's estimated cost of operating the licensing or certification program.
( b ) Taxes that pertain to each class must apply to all items and services within the class, regardless of whether the items and services are furnished by or through a Medicaid-certified or licensed provider.
[57 FR 55138, Nov. 24, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 43180, Aug. 13, 1993; 73 FR 9698, Feb. 22, 2008]
41192.

#### EVANS v. THE STATE.

Pannell, Judge.

A general verdict of guilty, upon an accusation containing two counts charging different offenses, which are in fact as well as theory, separate transactions, cannot be sustained where there is no evidence to support one of the counts. *Morse v. State,*10 Ga. App. 61 (72 SE 534); *Jones v. State,*27 Ga. App. 600 (110 SE 37); *Brooks v. State,*27 Ga. App. 629 (109 SE 548); *Lee v. State,*32 Ga. App. 333 (123 SE 40).

Upon application of the above rule to the present case, where the defendant was charged with selling nontax-paid whiskey and with the illegal sale of beer, and the only evidence was as to the sale of beer, and it does not appear that the jury was restricted solely to the consideration of the charge of illegal sale of beer, and the verdict was “guilty as charged,” the judgment of affirmance heretofore entered is, on motion for rehearing, vacated and a judgment of reversal entered in accordance with the above rulings.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*

*404Decided March 24, 1965.

*Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*contra.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Arthur Higgins, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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

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


                                              By: /s/ Arthur J. Higgins
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Arthur J. Higgins
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)

November 14, 2003
#### Mrs. Jean Tannis STEELE, wife of and Gene Steele v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., and Dr. Richard J. Clement.

No. 65051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. et al., applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 371 So.2d 843.

Denied.

MARCUS and BLANCHE, JJ., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 13

             CONSENT OF TANNER + CO., COMPANY'S INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                     FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2002,
                    DECEMBER 31, 2001, AND DECEMBER 31, 2000








                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                          -----------------------------



Utah Medical Products, Inc.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-24781, 33-44100, 33-89394, and 33-89434 of Utah Medical Products, Inc. on
Forms S-8 of our report dated January 21, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Utah Medical Products, Inc. for the years ended December 31,
2002, December 31, 2001, and December 31, 2000



 /s/ Tanner + Co.


Salt Lake City, Utah
March 26, 2003
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Information Resource Management...Initiatives – Bureau of Information Resource Management

# 									Initiatives							

Bureau of Information Resource Management

### Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Transition Policy****

The purpose of this document is to identify the departments policy and its commitment to implement the transition of the departments IT infrastructure from version 4 to version 6 of the Internet Protocol service. Please address all questions to: William Wright (WrightWO@state.gov).
        - Internet Protocol Version 6 Policy Statement

Tags

Bureau of Information Resource ManagementInformation Technology

Back to Top
<PAGE>

                         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 Statements (Form
S-8 No. 33-60831 and Form S-8 No. 333-50979) 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 23, 2000, except
for note M, as to which the date is October 31, 2000, 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, 2000.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 20, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Melvin TYLER.

No. 62308.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1978.

*903Raymond A. McGuire, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Melvin Tyler was charged with second degree murder in violation of La.R.S. 14:30.1 and after trial by jury was found guilty as charged. Subsequently the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life without benefit of probation or parole. Defendant now appeals his conviction and sentence to this Court.

While we find no grounds for reversal of defendant’s conviction, we note ex proprio motu that the sentence imposed is illegal. La.C.Cr.P. Art. 920(2). At the time of the commission of this offense on March 20, 1975, the appropriate penalty following a conviction for second degree murder was imprisonment at hard labor for life without eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence *for a period of twenty (20)*years. La.R.S. 14:30.1, added by Acts 1973, No. 111, § 1. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the sentence imposed is vacated and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to sentence the defendant in accordance with law.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Zoltan FARKAS, Appellee.

No. AD-32.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Dec. 9, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1982.

Richard A. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Thomas L. Powell of Douglass, Davey & Cooper, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *State v. Fried,*357 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA), *cert. denied*364 So.2d 891 (Fla.1978).

ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
§ 435.1012 Requirement for maintenance of optional State supplement expenditures. ( a ) This section applies to States that make optional State supplement payments under section 1616(a) of the Act and mandatory supplement payments under section 212(a) of Pub. L. 93-66.
( b ) FFP in Medicaid expenditures is not available during any period in which the State does not have in effect an agreement with the Secretary under section 1618 of the Act to maintain its supplementary payments.
[43 FR 45204, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 55 FR 48609, Nov. 21, 1990. Redesignated at 71 FR 39225, July 12, 2006]