alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AoA ACA Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA)

FY 2010 Annual Allocation

9/27/2010

State

Priority 1 - 

SHIPs 

(Managed By 

CMS)

Priority 2 - 

AAAs

Priority 3 - 

ADRCs Total for State

Alabama $386,607 $384,548 $140,487 $911,642

Alaska $22,429 $11,861 $31,164 $65,454

Arizona $211,084 $199,594 $328,444 $739,122

Arkansas $329,298 $276,652 $254,096 $860,046

California $687,144 $922,017 $581,956 $2,191,117

Colorado $140,212 $142,975 $70,028 $353,215

Connecticut $93,100 $120,041 $228,862 $442,003

Delaware $45,395 $38,845 $0 $84,240

District Of Columbia $24,308 $28,273 $37,324 $89,905

Florida $661,405 $784,309 $599,190 $2,044,904

Georgia $533,894 $470,384 $491,008 $1,495,286

Hawaii $37,167 $24,669 $82,484 $144,320

Idaho $118,952 $81,540 $16,928 $217,420

Illinois $543,099 $537,093 $419,061 $1,499,253

Indiana $444,171 $423,050 $480,430 $1,347,651

Iowa $243,441 $186,668 $28,032 $458,141

Kansas $202,011 $169,095 $50,160 $421,266

Kentucky $517,475 $428,943 $362,737 $1,309,155

Louisiana $325,085 $319,078 $326,745 $970,908

Maine $159,235 $125,857 $111,302 $396,394

Maryland $158,084 $193,914 $243,553 $595,551

Massachusetts $226,911 $273,255 $505,743 $1,005,909

Michigan $597,426 $616,093 $0 $1,213,519

Minnesota $254,861 $225,042 $373,752 $853,655

Missouri $419,266 $376,186 $0 $795,452

Montana $91,448 $64,365 $25,668 $181,481

Nebraska $116,344 $89,065 $0 $205,409

Nevada $68,740 $71,810 $123,731 $264,281

New Hampshire $96,686 $81,401 $103,675 $281,762

New Jersey $202,942 $289,868 $226,380 $719,190

New Mexico $125,902 $96,703 $148,753 $371,358

New York $820,864 $947,467 $798,701 $2,567,032

North Carolina $751,016 $701,661 $341,442 $1,794,119

Ohio $597,051 $619,907 $100,221 $1,317,179

Oklahoma $287,044 $249,645 $0 $536,689

Oregon $218,820 $187,834 $0 $406,654

Pennsylvania $798,931 $866,392 $168,674 $1,833,997

Puerto Rico $54,151 $42,732 $0 $96,883

Rhode Island $43,326 $52,609 $87,362 $183,297

South Carolina $318,091 $308,122 $216,232 $842,445

South Dakota $65,811 $49,368 $0 $115,179

Tennessee $520,149 $471,539 $175,926 $1,167,614

Texas $930,372 $961,678 $825,219 $2,717,269

Utah $76,207 $60,986 $0 $137,193

Vermont $60,505 $42,055 $34,811 $137,371

Virginia $383,574 $372,017 $285,311 $1,040,902

Washington $273,265 $265,369 $54,926 $593,560

West Virginia $185,082 $144,045 $182,979 $512,106

Wisconsin $488,291 $450,006 $336,503 $1,274,800

Wyoming $43,328 $28,375 $0 $71,703

Total $15,000,000 $14,875,000 $10,000,000 $39,875,000
#### § 142.21 Purpose and applicability.

This subpart prescribes requirements concerning personal protection on OCS facilities.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Darell Dwayne Mosher, * From the 32nd District Court

 of Nolan County

Trial Court No. 12133.

Vs. No. 11-17-00288-CR * October 10, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
Version 6.2020

Request for Change in Scope

A Change in Scope occurs when the recipient proposes to change (or changes) the objectives, aims, or 

purposes identified in the approved application, such as shifting the research emphasis from one focus

area to another, changing the service area, applying a new technology (e.g., changing methods from 

those originally approved to a different method), or making budget changes that cause a project to 

change substantially from that which was approved.

Documents Required

 A dated cover letter signed by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) that 

includes:

o Grant Award Number(s) and Grantee Organization Name 

o Effective date of change

o Summary of the Change in Scope - Written explanation of why the Change in Scope is 

needed, including the reason for the change and summary of activities that will or will 

not be completed as a result of the change. 

 Updated work plan 

 Budget Narrative (if applicable to the change)

How to Submit Your Request:

All requests for Change in Scope should be submitted by the grantee in Grants Management Module as 

a new amendment by accessing “Manage Amendments”, click “New”, select “ACL Change in Scope”.

GrantSolutions has a training video showing grantees how to request and manage grant amendments –

which include no-cost extension requests. This video is at the bottom of this page.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEDRIC RASHAD MARION,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00073-FL-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2020 Decided: September 18, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sedric Rashad Marion appeals his 180-month prison sentence after pleading guilty 

to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

The district court determined that he was an armed career criminal based on his four prior 

North Carolina felony convictions for breaking and entering. On appeal, he contends that 

the district court erred in holding that the offense of North Carolina breaking and entering 

is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). We affirm.

“Whether an offense constitutes a ‘violent felony’ and thus qualifies as a predicate 

conviction for purposes of ACCA is a question of law that we review de novo.” United 

States v. Allred, 942 F.3d 641, 647 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). In United States v. 

Mungro, we “conclude[d] that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54(a), as interpreted by the North 

Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary” 

and “therefore qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).” 

United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2014). In United States v. Dodge, 

we reaffirmed our “prior holding in Mungro that a conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-

54(a) qualifies as an ACCA predicate conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).” 

United States v. Dodge, 963 F.3d 379, 383-85 (4th Cir. 2020). We therefore conclude the 

district court did not err in sentencing Marion as an armed career criminal in this case.
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
79–008 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–15 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII 

WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 

RULES. 

FEBRUARY 11, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 158] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 158, by a record vote of 7–3, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The resolution applies the waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day of February 13, 2009, providing for consideration or disposition of any measure relating to 

H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 26 

Date: February 11, 2009. 

Measure: H. Res. 158, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of 

rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

Motion by: Ms. Matsui. 

Summary of motion: To report the rule. 

Results: Adopted 7–3. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Yea; Matsui—Yea; Cardoza—Yea; 

Arcuri—Yea; Perlmutter—Yea; Pingree—Yea; Polis—Yea; Dreier— 

Nay; Sessions—Nay; Foxx—Nay. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.587 Apponagansett River. ( a ) The draw of the Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, shall open on signal from 1 May through 31 October, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily, as follows: ( 1 ) The bridge shall open on signal, twice an hour, on the hour and half hour between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.
( 2 ) The bridge shall open on signal, once an hour, on the hour between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m.
( b ) At all other times the bridge shall open if at least four (4) hours advance notice is given.
( c ) The owners of this bridge shall provide and maintain mooring facilities for vessels to make fast while waiting for the bridge to open.
( d ) The owners of this bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition, clearance gauges for each draw with figures not less than twelve (12) inches high designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of section 118.160 of this chapter.
[CGD01-95-008, 60 FR 29761, June 6, 1995, as amended at USCG-2011-0335, 76 FR 64010, Oct. 17, 2011]
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.157 Georgiana Slough.

The draws of the Sacramento County highway bridges, mile 4.5 near Isleton, and mile 12.4 near Walnut Grove, shall open on signal from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. from May 1 through October 31. The draws shall open on signal from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times, the draws of these bridges shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given to the drawtender at the Rio Vista bridge across the Sacramento River, mile 12.8.
<PAGE>   1

TYPE: EX-24
SEQUENCE: 3
DESCRIPTION: POWER OF ATTORNEY

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                            Special Power of Attorney

        The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Cathy Souers her true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent will full power of substitution, for her
and in her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all
amendments, including post-effective amendments, to this Form 10Q-SB, and to
file the same with all exhibits thereto and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting such
attorney-in-fact the full power and authority to and perform each and every act
and think requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully
and to all intents and purposes as she might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact may lawfully do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.

        Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, this Form
10Q-SB has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the
date indicated:

By:  /s/  Cathy Souers
     --------------------------
     President
     February 22, 2000

By:  /s/  Diana Hewitt
     --------------------------
     Secretary and Treasurer
     February 22, 2000
§ 97.37 Subgrants. ( a ) *States.* States shall follow state law and procedures when awarding and administering subgrants (whether on a cost reimbursement or fixed amount basis) of financial assistance to local and Indian tribal governments. States shall: ( 1 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes any clauses required by Federal statute and executive orders and their implementing regulations;
( 2 ) Ensure that subgrantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by Federal statute and regulation;
( 3 ) Ensure that a provision for compliance with § 97.42 is placed in every cost reimbursement subgrant; and
( 4 ) Conform any advances of grant funds to subgrantees substantially to the same standards of timing and amount that apply to cash advances by Federal agencies.
( b ) *All other grantees.* All other grantees shall follow the provisions of this part which are applicable to awarding agencies when awarding and administering subgrants (whether on a cost reimbursement or fixed amount basis) of financial assistance to local and Indian tribal governments. Grantees shall: ( 1 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes a provision for compliance with this part;
( 2 ) Ensure that every subgrant includes any clauses required by Federal statute and executive orders and their implementing regulations; and
( 3 ) Ensure that subgrantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by Federal statutes and regulations.
( c ) *Exceptions.* By their own terms, certain provisions of this part do not apply to the award and administration of subgrants: ( 1 ) Section 97.10;
( 2 ) Section 97.11;
( 3 ) The letter-of-credit procedures specified in Treasury Regulations at 31 CFR part 205, cited in § 97.21; and
( 4 ) Section 97.50.
#### § 140.3 Applicability.

Unless otherwise stated, this subchapter applies to OCS facilities, vessels, and other units engaged in OCS activities as the term “OCS activities” is defined in § 140.10. This subchapter does not apply to pipelines and deepwater ports (as the term “deepwater port” is defined in section 3(10) of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1502)). The regulations in this subchapter (parts 140 through 147) have preemptive effect over state or local regulations in the same field.

[CGD 78-160, 47 FR 9376, Mar. 4, 1982, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48242, July 22, 2016]
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in
his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated:    May 12, 2003



|
|
|
|



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

133429 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., BECKY Maura D. Corrigan ALLEN, DORTHEA AGNOSTOPOULOS, Robert P. Young, Jr. ADNAN AYOUB, MEGHAN BELLANGER, Stephen J. Markman, JUDITH BLOCK, MARY M. BRISBOIS, WADE Justices CARLSON, COURTNEY D. CHAPIN, MICHAEL CHAPMAN, MICHELLE CORWIN, LORI CURRY, JOSEPH DARBY, SCOTT DENNIS, JIMETZKORN, JILL FULLER, SUSAN HALSEYCERAGH, PETER HAMM ER, DEBRA HARRAH, TY HIITHER, JOLINDA JACH, TERRY KORRECK, CRAIG KUKU K, GARY LINDSAY, KEVIN McMANN, A.T. MILLER, KITTY O’NEIL, DENNIS PATR ICK, TOM PATRICK, GREGG PIZZI, KATHLEEN POELKER, JEROME POST, BARBARA RAMBER, PAUL RENWICK, DAHLIA SCHWARTZ, ALEXANDRA STERN, GWEN STOKES, KEN CYBERSKI, JOANNE BEEMON, CAROL BORGESON, MICHAEL FALK, and MATT SCOTT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v SC: 133429 COA: 265870 GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, Ingham CC: 05-000368-CZ Defendant-Appellant, and

CITY OF KALAMAZOO, Defendant-Appellee, and

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Intervening Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the i ssue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

t0516 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 23, 2007

Clerk
### The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-4233

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Juan Beavers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 23, 1996 Filed: August 28, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Beav ers appeals the 151-month sentence imposed by the District Court after he pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base (crack) wit h

1 intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). W e affirm. At sentencing, Beavers, an African-American, objected to his of fenselevel calculation, wh ich was derived from the penalty scheme set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), providing the same penalties for given amounts of crack and 100 times greater amounts of powder cocaine (the 100-to-1 ratio) . Beaver s's objection was premised on Congress's rejection of a propose d amendm ent to the Sentencing Guidelines (Amendment 5) which would hav e eli minatedthe 100-to-1 ratio and equalized the penalties for crack an d powder cocaine. Beav ers argued the 100-to-1 ratio had a disproportionate

### -2-

adverse effect on African-Americans, Congress's rejection of Amendment 5 evidenced a discriminatory purpose on Congress's part in maintaining the penalt yscheme, and thus, continued application of the penalty schem e violated his Fifth Amendment equal protection an d due process rights. The District Court overruled Beavers's objection, an d he appeals. We rejected the challenge Beavers raises here in United Stat es v. Carter , No. 96-1329, 1996 WL 453275, at *2-*3 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 1996) (per curiam). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ACL Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA)

FY 2013 Annual Allocation

9/19/2013

State

 

SHIPs 

(Managed By 

CMS)

Priority 2 - 

AAAs

Priority 3 - 

ADRCs Total for State

Alabama $219,903 $202,642 $100,331 $522,876

Alaska $14,664 $13,481 $5,636 $33,781

Arizona $100,395 $92,496 $126,541 $319,432

Arkansas $164,924 $151,841 $77,746 $394,511

California $375,050 $346,001 $180,695 $901,746

Colorado $99,942 $92,117 $83,813 $275,872

Connecticut $43,306 $39,928 $83,002 $166,236

Delaware $24,524 $0 $0 $24,524

District Of Columbia $6,311 $5,827 $11,420 $23,558

Georgia $325,610 $299,977 $179,549 $805,136

Idaho $0 $55,383 $33,256 $88,639

Illinois $306,042 $282,047 $231,789 $819,878

Indiana $210,501 $193,913 $146,998 $551,412

Iowa $116,988 $107,567 $18,860 $243,415

Kansas $101,256 $93,194 $63,421 $257,871

Kentucky $245,578 $226,125 $110,987 $582,690

Louisiana $150,423 $138,619 $99,975 $389,017

Maine $48,361 $44,395 $38,675 $131,431

Maryland $117,190 $108,097 $114,334 $339,621

Massachusetts $88,026 $81,188 $154,743 $323,957

Michigan $269,732 $248,522 $241,282 $759,536

Minnesota $123,200 $113,324 $114,358 $350,882

Mississippi $167,707 $154,360 $34,155 $356,222

Missouri $218,228 $200,946 $9,121 $428,295

Montana $51,307 $47,203 $17,588 $116,098

Nebraska $62,601 $57,578 $0 $120,179

Nevada $57,436 $52,962 $48,989 $159,387

New Hampshire $46,896 $43,152 $31,722 $121,770

New Jersey $151,115 $139,536 $194,181 $484,832

New Mexico $69,967 $64,407 $45,514 $179,888

New York $382,604 $352,880 $243,225 $978,709

North Carolina $380,421 $350,439 $135,536 $866,396

Ohio $287,311 $264,725 $277,457 $829,493

Oklahoma $143,313 $131,939 $88,105 $363,357

Oregon $105,726 $97,308 $26,621 $229,655

Pennsylvania $358,335 $330,301 $333,572 $1,022,208

Puerto Rico $31,719 $29,129 $0 $60,848

Rhode Island $24,353 $22,475 $26,730 $73,558

South Carolina $207,741 $191,463 $112,207 $511,411

South Dakota $34,922 $32,112 $5,642 $72,676

Tennessee $233,109 $214,641 $153,726 $601,476

Texas $696,712 $642,436 $305,114 $1,644,262

Utah $45,636 $42,014 $35,247 $122,897

Vermont $26,755 $24,577 $16,224 $67,556

Virginia $249,878 $230,227 $136,499 $616,604

Washington $127,056 $116,997 $49,929 $293,982

West Virginia $116,676 $107,404 $55,987 $280,067

Wisconsin $132,265 $121,619 $132,786 $386,670

Wyoming $20,650 $18,986 $11,712 $51,348

Total $7,582,365 $7,018,500 $4,745,000 $19,345,865
Focus Group Participant Information Questionnaire

Residents/Family Members

Please complete this questionnaire. This information will be used only for summarizing participant information 

at this meeting. Please DO NOT write your name or address on this questionnaire.

Date: ________________________ Time: ________________________

1. I am the:

__ Resident

__ Family member (SPECIFY):__________

__ Friend

__ Guardian

__ Other: ___________________________

 

2. I live in a (respond on behalf of resident if the respondent is not the resident): 

__ Nursing home

__ Board and care home (assisted living, residential care, and other non-nursing home settings)

__ Other: ___________________________

3. I am:

___ Male

___ Female

4. I was born in ____. 

5. My marital status is: 

__ Single, never married 

__ Married or domestic partnership 

__ Widowed

__ Divorced 

__ Separated 

6. I am: 

__ American Indian or Alaska Native 

__ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

__ White

__ Black or African American 

__ Asian

__ Other (SPECIFY): __________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!

INSERT OMB INFORMATION HERE