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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 192

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 
                 in taxes on Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Fossella, Mr. 
  Feeney, and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 
                 in taxes on Social Security benefits.

    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 ``Social Security Beneficiary Tax 
Reduction Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad 
retirement benefits) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``This paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year 
beginning after December 31, 2006.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraph (3) of section 871(a) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``85 percent'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``50 percent''.
            (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) of the Social 
        Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-21) is amended--
                    (i) by striking ``(A) There'' and inserting 
                ``There'';
                    (ii) by striking ``(i)'' immediately following 
                ``amounts equivalent to''; and
                    (iii) by striking ``, less (ii)'' and all that 
                follows and inserting a period.
            (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        by striking subparagraph (B).
            (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        by striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating subparagraph 
        (C) as subparagraph (B).
            (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        in the first sentence by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
Drinkwater Extension Resolution



 Exhibit 10.81 
 MEETING OF THE COMPENSATION AND 
 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF 
 THE BOARDS OF 
 NORTEL NETWORKS
CORPORATION AND 
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED 
 FEBRUARY 19, 2009 
 EXTRACT 
 Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited 
 Amendment
to Severance Arrangements for David Drinkwater 
 RESOLVED, That the amendment to the severance arrangements for Mr. David
Drinkwater, Senior Advisor of Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited, to change his Employment Termination Date, as defined in the agreement between Nortel Networks Corporation and David Drinkwater dated November 11, 2008, to
March 31, 2009, on the terms and conditions as recommended to the Committee, be approved.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...On the Release of Philippine Former Senator De Lima

# 									On the Release of Philippine Former Senator De Lima							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

November 13, 2023

The United States welcomes former Philippine Senator Leila de Lima’s release on bail after nearly seven years of detention on politically motivated drug charges. Senator De Lima’s release follows her acquittal in two out of three cases. The United States urges the Philippines to resolve the remaining case against her in a manner that is consistent with its international human rights obligations and commitments.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonPhilippines

Back to Top
****

This chart presents 1997 Louisiana exports to the Newly IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union.  Data used to create the chart werecollected by the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce,with further analysis by the University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). Formore information call BISNIS at (202) 482-4655 or visit the MISER websiteat www.umass.edu/miser.
'96 export data for Louisiana
'95 export data for Louisiana
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
No. 99-591.

#### Avelar *v.*Idaho.

Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.
40747.

#### WORD v. HENDERSON et al.

Argued January 8, 1964

Decided May 12, 1965.

*Harold S. Willingham, Hicks & Howard, G. Robert Howard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Reed, Ingram, Flournoy & Custer, Lawrence B. Custer, Edwards, Bentley, Awtrey & Parker, A. Sidney Parker,*contra.

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court in *Word v. Henderson,*220 Ga. 846 (142 SE2d 244) having reversed the judgment of this court in *Word v. Henderson,*110 Ga. App. 780 (140 SE2d 92) in which we affirmed the grant of a summary judgment as to the defendant Dr. Charles T. Henderson, we hereby vacate our judgment of affirmance and enter a judgment of reversal in accord with the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court, which adopted the dissenting opinion of this court as the correct view.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., Nichols, P. J., Bell, P. J., Frankum, Jordan, Hall, Eberhardt, Bussell and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
§ 485.647 Condition of participation: psychiatric and rehabilitation distinct part units. ( a ) *Conditions.* ( 1 ) If a CAH provides inpatient psychiatric services in a distinct part unit, the services furnished by the distinct part unit must comply with the hospital requirements specified in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 482 of this subchapter, the common requirements of § 412.25(a)(2) through (f) of part 412 of this chapter for hospital units excluded from the prospective payment systems, and the additional requirements of § 412.27 of part 412 of this chapter for excluded psychiatric units.
( 2 ) If a CAH provides inpatient rehabilitation services in a distinct part unit, the services furnished by the distinct part unit must comply with the hospital requirements specified in subparts A, B, C, and D of part 482 of this subchapter, the common requirements of § 412.25(a)(2) through (f) of part 412 of this chapter for hospital units excluded from the prospective payments systems, and the additional requirements of §§ 412.29 and § 412.30 of part 412 of this chapter related specifically to rehabilitation units.
( b ) *Eligibility requirements.* ( 1 ) To be eligible to receive Medicare payments for psychiatric or rehabilitation services as a distinct part unit, the facility provides no more than 10 beds in the distinct part unit.
( 2 ) The beds in the distinct part are excluded from the 25 inpatient-bed count limit specified in § 485.620(a).
( 3 ) The average annual 96-hour length of stay requirement specified under § 485.620(b) does not apply to the 10 beds in the distinct part units specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, and admissions and days of inpatient care in the distinct part units are not taken into account in determining the CAH's compliance with the limits on the number of beds and length of stay in § 485.620.
[69 FR 49272, Aug. 11, 2004]
HomePeople...Maureen E. Cormack

# 				Maureen E. Cormack			

															Dean of the School of Leadership and Management						Foreign Service Institute												

				October 11, 2021 -									September 30, 2023							

**Maureen E. Cormack's term ended on September 30, 2023.**
Maureen E. Cormack is the Dean of the Leadership and Management School at the Foreign Service Institute. In her most recent roles, she served as the Acting Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs from 2019 to September 2021. She served as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the German Marshall Fund and Senior Advisor for the 2019 Global Entrepreneurship Summit, co-hosted by the United States and The Netherlands in The Hague.

She was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 2015. Prior to arriving in Sarajevo, Ambassador Cormack served in Washington DC as the Chief of Staff to the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL; as Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Bureau of International Information Programs, and as Executive Assistant in the Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. Previously, she held the positions of Director of the Office of Western European Affairs, Deputy Director for Korean Affairs, and served as a Pearson Fellow on the Homeland Security Committee of the House of Representatives.

Overseas, she served as Press Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, Korea, as Deputy Cultural Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Paris, and as Consul at the American Presence Post in western France, covering the regions of Brittany, Normandy, and the Loire.

Maureen Cormack joined the Foreign Service in 1989 and in early assignments served as Director of the American Centers in Kwangju, South Korea and Warsaw, Poland. She returned to Washington, DC as European personnel officer for the former U.S. Information Agency.

Prior to joining the Foreign Service, she worked for the Ravinia Festival, the summer home of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, in fundraising, public relations, and artistic management. She also worked for the Chicago law firm of Shefsky, Saitlin, and Froelich.

Ambassador Cormack has a B.A. in performing arts management from the University of Illinois, an M.A. in international relations from the University of Chicago and a Diplome Semestriel from the University of Paris IV. She speaks French and has studied Bosnian, Polish, Korean, and Spanish.

Tags
Foreign Service InstituteState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
#### Marshall et al. v. Hughes et al.

*Warren Y. Francis*and *Louis Sager,*for plaintiffs.

*Duffy, McTighe & McElhone*and *William B. Koch,*for defendant.

*Smillie, Bean & Scirica,*for additional defendant.

December 15, 1954.

Dannehower, J.,

On May 5, 1953, plaintiffs began this action in trespass by complaint to recover for property damages and personal injuries sustained in a collision of automobiles on June 10, 1951.

On July 8, 1953, more than two years after the collision, original defendant, Arthur A. Hughes, by writ, brought Clarence Gabel, Jr., upon the record as an additional defendant, and alleged in the complaint that said defendant caused personal injuries and property damage and “is alone liable, or liable over, or liable severally or jointly with the original defendant”.

Additional defendant has filed a preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike off original defendant’s complaint on the ground that “the facts averred in said complaint merely tend to establish the sole liability of the additional defendant to the plain*208tiff, which liability is barred by the statute of limitations”.

Counsel for additional defendant has raised this affirmative defense (the statute of limitations) by preliminary objection in the nature of a motion to strike, presumably because of lack of conformity to law. But he should not, and cannot, properly so plead because Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 provides that the defense of the statute of limitations shall be pleaded in a responsive pleading under the heading “New Matter”.

In order to uphold uniformity of practice and clarity of pleading, this preliminary objection should be overruled and dismissed, for to rule otherwise would be to permit a party to circumvent rule 1030 and thus defeat the purpose for which it was promulgated. Notwithstanding that original defendant has alleged sole liability additional defendant can file a responsive pleading and also allege the statute of limitations as to personal injuries, under the heading “New Matter”. Whereupon original defendant may reply thereto and clear-cut issues will be raised.

The attention of counsel for each party is directed to Wnek v. Boyle, 374 Pa. 27 (1953), a case involving facts and pleadings paralleling those of the case at bar. There, the statute of limitations was properly pleaded, not as a preliminary objection, but under the heading of “New Matter” in the answer. Furthermore, the reply of original defendant to such new matter should be in conformity with that decision on page 31, so as to preserve his right of contribution by pleading joint or several liability without alleging facts admitting his own liability.

And now, December 15, 1954, for the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objection is overruled and additional defendant shall have the right to plead over within 20 days of notice of this order.
#### REED V. THE STATE.

(Decided April 13, 1911.)

Appeal from Talladega City Court-.

Heard before Hon. G. K. Miller.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Alexander M. ■Garber, Attorney General, for the State.

Pelham, J.

No error in the record. Affirmed.
#### MANNY’S DRESSES and Parliament Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Mercedes ARIAS, Appellee.

No. TT-165.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 11, 1980.

C. J. Budzinski, Hialeah, for appellants.

Howard N. Pelzner and Joseph J. Finkel-stein, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Deputy Commissioner merely states that the factors in *Lee Engineering & Construction Co. v. Fellows,*209 So.2d 454 (Fla.1968) have been considered, but findings of fact must be sufficiently stated, if a meaningful review is to be conducted. *See Casings, Florida, Inc. v. Williams,*389 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); *State of Florida, Sunland Training Center at Miami v. Caldwell,*388 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

REMANDED for further consideration not inconsistent with this opinion.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and THOMPSON, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
OAR Box 1112 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

3) ll-B-2 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/16/2008 9:12:05 AM Sheet 3 of 97 

P.1 
P.2 

/ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

Apri l 26, 1985 *£lNVli» 

• -x^ H 

l . •-•-»-

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Correspondence Pertaining to Lead Risk Assessment Program 

John H. Hainlf^ 

Ambient Standards Branch (MD-12) 

Docket Number A-83-22 

The attached letters were sent to the six experts to be encoded about 

dose-response curves for lead-induced IQ decrements. Also attached is a 

copy of the document Protocol for Encoding Judgments About Outcomes of 

Experiments to Assess Lead-Induced IQ Decrements, which is to be used 

during the encoding sessions. In addition, a memorandum is attached that 

describes the process used in developing the protocol. 

Attachments
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Programs
- Regional Offices
- Notes and Notices
- Contact Us
- OFM COVID-19 Resources

HomeRegional Offices – Office of Foreign Missions...OFM Houston – Regional Office

# 									OFM Houston – Regional Office							

OFM Houston provides reciprocal services to and liaises with foreign consulates located in the following states: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska.

#### CONTACT US:

OFM Houston8701 S. Gessner, Suite 906Houston, TX 77074Phone: (713) 997-7999Email: OFMHouston@state.gov

Tags

Embassies and ConsulatesForeign Consular Offices in the U.S.Foreign Diplomats in the U.S.Foreign Embassies in the U.S.Foreign Missions

Back to Top
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  quarterly  report of National Home Health Care
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Robert P.  Heller,  Principal  Financial  Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge:

         (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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

June 12, 2003.

                                                     /s/ Robert P. Heller
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    Robert P. Heller
                                                    Vice President of Finance
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 57.1501 Applicability.

The regulations of this subpart are applicable to loan guarantees and interest subsidy payments made pursuant to section 729 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 293i) to assist nonprofit private entities which are eligible for grants under subpart B of this part in carrying out projects for construction of teaching facilities for health professions personnel.
§ 505.5 Loan criteria. ( a ) *Qualifying criteria.* To qualify for the loan program, the applicant must meet the following conditions: ( 1 ) Meet the definition of a “qualifying hospital” as set forth in § 505.3 of this part.
( 2 ) Request a loan for the capital costs of an “eligible project” as defined in § 505.3 of this part. The capital costs for which a qualifying hospital may obtain a loan are limited to the reasonable costs incurred by the hospital, and capitalized on the Medicare cost report, for any facility or item of equipment that it has acquired the possession or use of at the time the loan funding is awarded.
( b ) *Selection criteria.* In selecting loan beneficiaries, CMS prioritizes qualifying hospitals that meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) The hospital is located in a State that, based on population density, is defined as a rural State. A rural State is one of ten States with the lowest population density. An applicant entity is required to be located in one of these ten States. The ten States are prioritized beginning with the State with the lowest population density. Population density is determined based on the most recent available U.S. Census Bureau data.
( 2 ) The hospital is located in a State with multiple Indian tribes in the State. After prioritizing based on paragraph (b)(1) of this section, States are further prioritized based on the States with the most Indian tribes. The number of Indian tribes in a State is based on the most recent data available published in “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United State Bureau of Indian Affairs.” (68 FR 68180) published on December 5, 2003.
( c ) CMS will send written notice to qualifying hospitals that have been selected to participate in the loan program under this part.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SOUTH FLORIDA IMAGING AND DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC. d/b/a

TESLA MRI a/a/o KYLAHIA CAMPBELL,

Appellant,

v.

DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2057

[May 10, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Melanie Dale Surber, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502021SC017340.

Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

William J. McFarlane, III and Michael K. Mittelmark of McFarlane Law, 

Coral Springs, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant South Florida Imaging appeals the circuit court’s order that 

granted appellee Direct General Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss 

and dismissed the case. Appellant argues the circuit court incorrectly 

considered documents outside of the four corners of the complaint. In 

response, appellee commendably confesses error. Based on appellee’s 

proper confession of error, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal and 

remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

MAY, CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### MICHAEL A. BUCCIERI *v.*PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY ET AL.

*Christopher T. Goulden,*in support of the petition.

*William C. Brown,*in opposition.

Decided January 23, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 16433) is denied.
----

|   | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/    | Lisa K. Vansickle                                 |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Lisa K. Vansickle                                 |
|   |   |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)      |

----
#### LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[55 C. Cls. 45; 258 U. S. 374.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On plaintiff’s appeal the judgment was *modified and affirmed*and the case remanded, the Supreme Court deciding:

The obligation of a land-grant-aided railroad to transport at reduced rates “troops” of the United States applies, to the transportation of members of the Coast Guard when serving as. part of the Navy but not when serving under the Treasury.

Mr. Justice BeaNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 10, 1922.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.132 Protection against liability and loss of benefits.

Enrollees of MA organizations are entitled to the protections specified in § 422.504(g).

[63 FR 35077, June 26, 1998, as amended at 70 FR 52026, Sept. 1, 2005]