alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 2429 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception to the 

60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between two physicians 

during the period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active duty as 

a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RECIPROCAL 

BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE OF PHYSICIANS 

ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is amended by inserting 

after ‘‘of more than 60 days’’ the following: ‘‘or are provided (before 

January 1, 2008) over a longer continuous period during all of 

which the first physician has been called or ordered to active 

duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall apply to services furnished on or after the date of the enactment of this section. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
41718.

#### ATLANTA LIGHTING FIXTURE COMPANY, INC. v. PEACHTREE-SHERIDAN CORPORATION.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. A judgment denying a summary judgment is not reviewable. Ga. L. 1959, pp. 234, 236 *(Code Ann.*§ 110-1208). Therefore, the enumeration of error assigning as error the judgment of the trial court overruling the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is not reviewable.

2. “When a materialman is furnishing at the same time material to one contractor for the improvement of property belonging to different persons, and has full knowledge of the separate contracts, and money is paid to the materialman by the contractor from time to time on account of the material so furnished, it is incumbent upon the materialman to keep separate accounts and to find out from the contractor on what contract the money is paid, and to what account it should be applied. If he does not do so, but applies the money as a credit on a general account against the contractor, he thereby waives his right to a lien on the owner’s property, and must look alone to the contractor.” *Williams v. Willingham-Tift Lumber Co.,*5 Ga. App. 533, 535 (63 SE 584). See also *Grigsby v. Fleming,*96 Ga. App. 664, 666 (101 SE2d 217).

3. Where, as in the present case, the seller of building materials furnished materials to a contractor for the improvement of various properties owned by different persons during the same period of time and kept one account (ledger) for such contractor, rather than separate accounts, and gave credit for payments on the total balance due on the one account rather than on the specific account specified by the contractor, he *314waives his right to a lien on the owner’s property and must look alone to the contractor.

Argued January 6, 1966

Decided February 23, 1966

Rehearing denied March 14, 1966.

*George S. Stern, Sidney I. Bose,*for appellant.

*Parker & Parker, Melvin Pazol, A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Bichard L. Parker,*for appellee.

(a) In this case as in *Grigsby v. Fleming,*96 Ga. App. 664, supra, the contractor gave instructions as to which “job” credit should be given for payments made but such credit was not specified on the materialman’s general account until after the contractor had financial difficulties. The judgment for the defendant was authorized by the evidence and the trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
§ 200.6 Public involvement. ( a ) As part of its system for NEPA compliance, the COO and the Master Planner shall provide for levels and kinds of public involvement appropriate to the proposed action and its likely effects.
( b ) Where a related authority provides specific procedures for public involvement, the responsible AFRH official shall ensure that such procedures where practicable in the process of NEPA review.
( c ) Public involvement in the AFRH NEPA process shall have as its purpose the full disclosure of AFRH actions and alternatives to the public, within the constraints of AFRH program authorities, and giving the public a full opportunity to comment on the environmental effects of AFRH proposals.
( d ) Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, special efforts will be made to involve members of potentially affected low-income and minority communities in NEPA review and decision-making. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, special programs of community outreach, including cross-cultural programs, translations of pertinent documents, and ensuring that translators are available at public meetings.
( e ) Information pertaining to AFRH actions and/or NEPA documentation can be obtained through the Master Planner at 3700 North Capital Street, NW, Washington, DC 20011.
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

FRANCI SCO TARANGO and SARA TARANGO, Appellants,

v. J AI ME CHONG, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00290- CV

Appea l from County Court at L aw No. 5 of El Paso County , Texas (TC # 2009-J00077)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION
T his appea l is befor e the Court on its own motion for deter mination whether the appe al should be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution. Finding that Appellants have not filed a brief or a 1 motion for extension of tim e, we dismiss the appe al. On Fe bruar

y 23, 2010, the Clerk of the Court notified Appellants that their brief was past due and no motion for extension of time had been rec eived. The Clerk also informed the parties of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appea l f or want of prosec ution unless, within ten day s of the notice, a party responde d showing g rounds to continue the appea l. No response has been rec eived as of this date. This Court possesses the authority to dis m i s s an appea l for want of prosec ution when the appellant has failed to f

ile his brief in the time presc ribed, and g ives no rea sonable explanation f or such failure

. T E X .R.A P P .P. 3 8

. 8 (a )( 1 ); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio , 975 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1998, no wr it). We have g iven notice of our intent to dismiss the appeal

A p p e l l a n t , S a r a T a r a n g o , i s a l s o r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c l e r k ’ s r e c o r d a s S a r a S o t o . 1and reque sted a response if a rea sonable basis for failure to file the brief or statement of fac ts exis ts,

but we have rec eived no response . We dismiss the appea l for wa n t o f prosec ution pursuant to T E X .R.A P P .P. 38.8(a)( 1) and 42.3( c).

April 22, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.
**EXHIBIT          32.2**

**CERTIFICATION          PURSUANT TO**

**18          U.S.C. SS.1350,**

**AS          ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION          906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                         |                                                   | ** **                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** **                                   | **IR                      BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.** |
|                                    |                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| Date: May                      11, 2007 | By:                                          | /s/ John                    N.                    Fermanis                                                                    |
|                                         | John N. Fermanis                                       |
|                                         | Chief                      Financial Officer           |

----
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.505 Filipino veterans and their survivors; benefits at the full-dollar rate. The effective date of discontinuance of compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation for a Filipino veteran or his or her survivor under § 3.42 will be the earliest of the dates stated in this section. Where an award is reduced, the reduced rate will be payable the day following the date of discontinuance of the greater benefit. ( a ) If a veteran or survivor receiving benefits at the full-dollar rate under § 3.42 is physically absent from the U.S. for a total of 183 days or more during any calendar year, VA will reduce benefits to the rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized under the law, effective on the 183rd day of absence from the U.S.
( b ) If a veteran or survivor receiving benefits at the full-dollar rate under § 3.42 is physically absent from the U.S. for more than 60 consecutive days, VA will reduce benefits to the rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized under the law, effective on the 61st day of the absence.
( c ) If a veteran or survivor receiving benefits at the full-dollar rate under § 3.42 loses either U.S. citizenship or status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., VA will reduce benefits to the rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized under the law, effective on the day he or she no longer satisfies one of these criteria.
( d ) If mail to a veteran or survivor receiving benefits at the full-dollar rate under § 3.42 is returned to VA by the U.S. Postal Service, VA will make reasonable efforts to determine the correct mailing address. If VA is unable to determine the veteran's or survivor's correct address through reasonable efforts, VA will reduce benefits to the rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized under law, effective the first day of the month that follows the month for which VA last paid benefits.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 107)
[71 FR 8221, Feb. 16, 2006]
41992.

#### PEEK v. FIELDS.

Argued May 2, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September 21, 1966.

*Christopher & Futral, Claude Christopher,*for appellant.

*Beck, Goddard, Owen & Smalley, Robert H. Smalley, Jr., John H. Goddard,*for appellee.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where general and special demurrers to a petition are overruled and no exception is taken thereto, the judgment on demurrer concludes the parties upon all questions necessarily involved in the decision of the points raised on demurrer *(Gibson v. Mason,*31 Ga. App. 584 (2) (121 SE 584); *Quarterman v. Godwin,*34 Ga. App. 201 (129 SE 14)), and if the plaintiff offers substantial proof of her allegations she is entitled to recover. *Pierpont Mfg. Co. v. Mayor &c. of Savannah,*153 Ga. 455, 457 (112 SE 462).

2. The petition here, seeking recoveiy for injury suffered when plaintiff was run into by defendant’s dog which was chasing a truck, as was its habit, was demurred to generally, and special demurrers were filed to crucial language on the grounds that such language was a conclusion of the pleader with no facts alleged to sustain them. These demurrers were overruled and no appeal had therefrom. The plaintiff substantially proved her case as laid including the facts alleged in her petition upon which the alleged “conclusions” were based. The trial court erred, therefore, in directing a verdict for the defendant. See *Howard v. C. & S. Bank,*32 Ga. App. 22 (122 SE 717); *Branan v. LaGrange Truck Line,*94 Ga. App. 829, 845 (96 SE2d 364).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2429

AN ACT

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal 

billing arrangements between two physicians during the 

period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active 

duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 

Forces.
2

•HR 2429 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RE4 CIPROCAL BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE 

5 OF PHYSICIANS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY 

6 IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the 

8 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is 

9 amended by inserting after ‘‘of more than 60 days’’ the 

10 following: ‘‘or are provided (before January 1, 2008) over 

11 a longer continuous period during all of which the first 

12 physician has been called or ordered to active duty as a 

13 member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after 

16 the date of the enactment of this section. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2429

AN ACT

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 

of a reserve component of the Armed Forces.physicians is ordered to active duty as a member physicians during the period in which one of the care reciprocal billing arrangements between two provide an exception to the 60-day limit on Medi-
§ 20.705 Rule 705. Functions of the presiding Member. ( a ) *General.* The presiding Member is responsible for the conduct of a Board hearing in accordance with the provisions of subparts G and H of this part.
( b ) *Duties.* The duties of the presiding Member include, but are not limited to, any of the following: ( 1 ) Conducting a prehearing conference, pursuant to § 20.707;
( 2 ) Ruling on questions of procedure;
( 3 ) Administering the oath or affirmation;
( 4 ) Ensuring that the course of the Board hearing remains relevant to the issue or issues on appeal;
( 5 ) Setting reasonable time limits for the presentation of argument;
( 6 ) Prohibiting cross-examination of the appellant and any witnesses;
( 7 ) Determining whether documentary evidence, testimony, and/or argument is relevant or material to the issue or issues being considered and not unduly repetitious;
( 8 ) Terminating a Board hearing or directing that an offending party, representative, witness, or observer leave the hearing if that party persists or engages in disruptive or threatening behavior;
( 9 ) Disallowing or halting the use of personal recording equipment being used by an appellant or representative if it becomes disruptive to the hearing; and
( 10 ) Taking any other steps necessary to maintain good order and decorum.
( c ) *Ruling on motions.* The presiding Member has the authority to rule on any Board hearing-related motion.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[84 FR 187, Jan. 18, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.319 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 32-2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Navigators Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Paul J. Malvasio, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)            The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Paul J. Malvasio         |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Paul J. Malvasio             |
| Executive Vice President and |
| Chief Financial Officer      |
| November 1, 2006             |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toThe Navigators Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Navigators Group, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1

----
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.62 Procedure for submitting response.

(a) *Deadline.* Each Office action shall set forth the deadline for response.

(1) *Response periods.* Unless the applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action, the response periods for an Office action are as follows:

(i) Three months from the issue date, for an Office action in an application under section 1 and/or section 44 of the Act; and

(ii) Six months from the issue date, for an Office action in an application under section 66(a) of the Act.

(2) *Extensions of time.* Unless the applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action, the time for response designated in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section may be extended by three months up to a maximum of six months from the Office action issue date, upon timely request and payment of the fee set forth in § 2.6(a)(28). To be considered timely, a request for extension of time must be received by the Office on or before the deadline for response set forth in the Office action.

(b) *Signature.* The response must be signed by the applicant, someone with legal authority to bind the applicant (*e.g.,* a corporate officer or general partner of a partnership), or a practitioner qualified to practice under § 11.14 of this chapter, in accordance with the requirements of § 2.193(e)(2).

(c) *Form.* Responses and requests for extensions of time to respond must be submitted through TEAS pursuant to § 2.23(a). Responses and requests for extensions of time to respond sent via email or facsimile will not be accorded a date of receipt.

[84 FR 37095, July 31, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 64326, Nov. 17, 2021]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
126 STAT. 334 PUBLIC LAW 112–113—MAY 15, 2012 

Public Law 112–113 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol located at 2136 South 

Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station’’. 

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 ‘‘Brian A. Terry Memorial Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds the following: 

(1) A native of Flat Rock, Michigan, Agent Brian A. Terry 

served his country proudly with the United States Marine 

Corps and continued his service as a police officer with the 

cities of Ecorse and Lincoln Park, Michigan, prior to joining 

the United States Border Patrol. 

(2) Agent Terry was a member of the 699th Session of 

the Border Patrol Academy assigned to the Naco Border Patrol 

Station within the Tucson Sector. 

(3) On December 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian 

A. Terry was conducting a Border Patrol Tactical unit 

(BORTAC) operation in the area of ‘‘Peck Wells’’. 

(4) At 11:15 p.m., near Rio Rico, Arizona, and about 15 

miles north of Nogales, Arizona, Agent Terry and his team 

spotted a group of individuals approaching their position. 

(5) Shortly thereafter, an encounter ensued and gunfire 

was exchanged that left Agent Terry mortally wounded. 

(6) Agent Terry succumbed to his injuries on December 

15, 2010. 

(7) Agent Terry is survived by his mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, brother, and two sisters. 

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

The station of the United States Border Patrol located at 2136 

South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station’’. 

SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the station referred to 

Brian A. Terry 

Memorial Act. 

May 15, 2012 

[H.R. 2668] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 112–113—MAY 15, 2012 126 STAT. 335 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2668: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 112–326 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 157 (2011): Dec. 12, 14, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 158 (2012): May 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Brian A. 

Terry Border Patrol Station’’. 

Approved May 15, 2012. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS