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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5557 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5557

   To require identification in medical records of the Department of 
Defense of the affiliation of certain non-Department of Defense health 
                care providers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 17 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

 Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Cruz) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require identification in medical records of the Department of 
Defense of the affiliation of certain non-Department of Defense health 
                care providers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION IN PATIENT MEDICAL RECORDS OF AFFILIATION OF 
              CERTAIN NON-DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 1091 the following new section:
``Sec. 1091a. Identification in patient medical records of affiliation 
              of certain non-Department of Defense health care 
              providers
    ``(a) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that 
medical records of the Department of Defense include the organizational 
affiliation of any independent health care contractor identified in 
such medical records.
    ``(b) Independent Health Care Contractor Defined.--In this section, 
the term `independent health care contractor' means a health care 
provider who meets the following criteria:
            ``(1) The health care provider is a nonpersonal services 
        contractor, or an employee of such a contractor, pursuant to 
        subpart 37.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or other 
        applicable regulation.
            ``(2) The health care provider provides health care 
        services under this chapter in any military medical treatment 
        facility (as defined in section 1073c(i) of this title) or 
        other location under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 
        Defense, including an operational clinic.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
1091 the following new item:

``1091a. Identification in patient medical records of affiliation of 
                            certain non-Department of Defense health 
                            care providers.''.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 12006E225 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E225

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 4 - The Court of Justice - Article 225 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0143 - 0144 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0124 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0270 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0061 - Consolidated version *

Article 225

1. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance actions or proceedings referred to in Articles 230, 232, 235, 236 and 238, with the exception of those assigned to a judicial panel and those reserved in the Statute for the Court of Justice. The Statute may provide for the Court of First Instance to have jurisdiction for other classes of action or proceeding.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance under this paragraph may be subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute.

2. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions or proceedings brought against decisions of the judicial panels set up under Article 225a.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance under this paragraph may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being affected.

3. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234, in specific areas laid down by the Statute.

Where the Court of First Instance considers that the case requires a decision of principle likely to affect the unity or consistency of Community law, it may refer the case to the Court of Justice for a ruling.

Decisions given by the Court of First Instance on questions referred for a preliminary ruling may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being affected.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12004V212 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V212

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 2 — Social policy - Article III-212 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0095 - 0095 *

Article III-212

1. Should management and labour so desire, the dialogue between them at Union level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements.

2. Agreements concluded at Union level shall be implemented either in accordance with the procedures and practices specific to management and labour and the Member States or, in matters covered by Article III-210, at the joint request of the signatory parties, by European regulations or decisions adopted by the Council on a proposal from the Commission. The European Parliament shall be informed.

Where the agreement in question contains one or more provisions relating to one of the areas for which unanimity is required pursuant to Article III-210(3), the Council shall act unanimously.

--------------------------------------------------
Case 16-26666 Doc 4 Filed 08/19/16 Entered 08/19/16 12:17:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-26666 Doc 4 Filed 08/19/16 Entered 08/19/16 12:17:55 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20463 

 June 2, 2023 

Via Electronic Mail

E. Stewart Crosland

Jones Day

51 Louisiana Avenue N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

scrosland@jones.day.com

 RE: MUR 8092 

 Aspen Lodging Group, LLC 

 d/b/a Provenance Hotels

Dear Mr. Crosland: 

On May 23, 2023, the Federal Election Commission accepted the signed conciliation 

agreement submitted on your client's behalf in settlement of a violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30122, 

30116(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C), and 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(1)(i), provisions of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“the Act”). Accordingly, the file has been closed in this 

matter. 

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See 

Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 

(Aug. 2, 2016). Information derived in connection with any conciliation attempt will not become 

public without the written consent of the respondent and the Commission. See 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(4)(B). 

 Enclosed you will find a copy of the fully executed conciliation agreement for your files. 

Please note that the civil penalty is due within 30 days of the conciliation agreement's effective 

date. If you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 746-8564. 

 Sincerely,

 Kimberly D. Hart

 Attorney 

Enclosure 

 Conciliation Agreement 

MUR809200100
MUR809200101
MUR809200102
MUR809200103
MUR809200104
MUR809200105
6/2/23

Charles 

Kitcher

Digitally signed by 

Charles Kitcher 

Date: 2023.06.02 

09:00:29 -04'00'

MUR809200106
[No. 4064.]

#### Dick Munson *v.*The State.

Robbery—Assault to Murder—Charge of the Court.—Indictment for the offense of robbery will not support a conviction for assault with intent to murder. The trial court, therefore, erred in charging the jury that if they did not believe that the accused was guilty of robbery, but • did believe from the evidence that he was guilty of an assault with intent to murder, they should find him guilty of the latter offense, and assess his punishment accordingly.

Appeal from the District Court of Wharton. Tried below before the Hon. W. H. Burkhart.

The indictment charged the appellant with the offense of robbery, and the conviction was for assault with intent to murder. The punishment assessed by the jury was a term of four years in the penitentiary.

The record brings up no statement of facts, the appeal being prosecuted on the one question discussed in the opinion.

*330Mo brief for the appellant has reached the Reporters.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion delivered May 15, 1886.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was indicted in the low er court for the crime of robbery. On the trial the court instructed the-jury that if they did not believe the defendant was guilty of robbery, but did believe that he as guilty of an assault with intent to murder, they should find him guilty of assault with intent to murder, and assess his punishment accordingly. Under this instruction, the jury found defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder, and it is from a judgment rendered on that verdict, and convicting him of said offense, that this appeal is prosecuted.

We could, perhaps, imagine how an indictment, defective in charging robbery, though attempting to do so, might be good as an indictment for assault and battery. (Smedly v. The State, 30 Texas, 214.) But we can not see how a charge for robbery in the ordinary, form under our statute (Penal Code, Art. 722), would or could embrace a charge of assault with intent to murder. Robbery is not one of the crimes especially mentioned in the code as consisting of degrees (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 714), and should it be conceded that it is an offense susceptible of degree's, in so far as intent to rob and attempt to rob are concerned, still it cannot embrace assault with intent to murder where the specific intent, which is the gist of the offense, is not alleged—is essential to the description and essential to the proof of the crime. (Code Crim. Proc., Art. 423; Morris v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 65.)

There is no'averment in the indictment before us that the as: sault was with intent to murder the injured party. The defendant was not put upon notice by the indictment that he would be held to answer a charge of assault with intent to murder, and under the indictment he could not legally be convicted of such offense.

Because the judgment of conviction is without warrant or authority of law, it is reversed and the cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### § 1275.52 Periodic review of restrictions.

The Archivist periodically will assign archivists to review materials placed under restriction by § 1275.48 or § 1275.50 and to make available for public access those materials which, with the passage of time or other circumstances, no longer require restriction.
#### Henry R. Popejoy, appellee, v. Edwin E. Burr, appellant.

Filed June 16, 1913.

No. 17,248.

Appeal: Affirmance. “Where the verdict returned is clearly right and is the only one warranted by the evidence, the judgment will be affirmed, although errors may have intervened at the trial.” *United States School-Furniture Go. v. School District,*56 Neb. 645.

Appeal from the district court for Webster county: Harry S. Dungan, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Bernard*McNeny, for appellant.

*L. H. Blachledge, contra.*

Fawcett, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in the district court for Webster county to recover the value of two mares and a mule colt, stolen from him across the line in’Kansas, which animals he alleged were sold to defendant and by defendant resold without his knowledge or permission, of the alleged value of $400. The answer was a general denial. From a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $300 and judgment thereon, defendant appeals.

The principal contentions here are: The identity of the larger of the two mares; that the court erred in some of the instructions given upon its own motion and in refusing certain other instructions tendered by defendant; errors of the court in the admission and exclusion of evidence; and that generally the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. We have carefully examined the abstract prepared by defendant, and are unable to see how, so far as the identity of the animals in controversy is concerned, any other verdict could be sustained than the one returned by the jury. On the question of the value of the animals, the evidence is in sharp conflict. There is testimony in the'record which would have supported a larger verdict. *53There is also testimony which would have supported a verdict for a considerably less sum. The jury saw the witnesses upon the stand, heard them testify, and, under the well-settled practice, their verdict must control. It would serve no good purpose to discuss the rulings of the court upon the introduction and exclusion of evidence, or as to the giving and refusal of instructions', as we do not see how the errors complained of could have in any manner changed the result. The defendant- was evidently an innocent victim of a horse thief, but he seems to have had a fair trial, and must stand the consequences of tlie fraud practiced upon him.

Affirmed.

Letton, Rose and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 AngelCiti Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of
               operations of the Company.




Dated: May 17, 2007                By: /s/
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       George Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer
                                       and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 61539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8751]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Notice of Rate for Use in Federal Debt Collection and Discount 
and Rebate Evaluation

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as 
amended, (31 U.S.C. 3717), the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible 
for computing and publishing the percentage rate to be used in 
assessing interest charges for outstanding debts owed to the 
Government. Treasury's Cash Management Requirements (1 TFM 6-8000) 
prescribe use of this rate by agencies as a comparison point in 
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a cash discount. In addition, 5 
CFR 1315.8 of the Prompt Payment rule on ``Rebates'' requires that this 
rate be used in determining when agencies should pay purchase card 
invoices when the card issuer offers a rebate. Notice is hereby given 
that the applicable rate is 4.00 percent for calendar year 2007.

DATES: The rate will be in effect for the period beginning on January 
1, 2007, and ending on December 31, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries should be directed to the 
Agency Enterprise Solutions Division, Financial Management Service, 
Department of the Treasury, 401 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20227 
(Telephone: 202-874-6650).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rate reflects the current value of funds 
to the Treasury for use in connection with Federal Cash Management 
systems and is based on investment rates set for purposes of Pub. L. 
95-147, 91 Stat. 1227. Computed each year by averaging Treasury Tax and 
Loan (TT&L) investment rates for the 12-month period ending every 
September 30, rounded to the nearest whole percentage, for 
applicability effective each January 1, the rate is subject to 
quarterly revisions if the annual average, on a moving basis, changes 
by 2 percentage points. The rate in effect for the calendar year 2007 
reflects the average investment rates for the 12-month period that 
ended September 30, 2006.

    Dated: October 12, 2006.
Gary Grippo,
Assistant Commissioner, Federal Finance.
[FR Doc. 06-8751 Filed 10-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Samuel D. Jones, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Idearc Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: March 12, 2009

/s/ SAMUEL D. JONES Samuel D. Jones
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
# EUR-Lex - 12008E061 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E061

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE IV: FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL - Chapter 3: Services - Article 61 (ex Article 54 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0071 - 0071 *

Article 61

(ex Article 54 TEC)

As long as restrictions on freedom to provide services have not been abolished, each Member State shall apply such restrictions without distinction on grounds of nationality or residence to all persons providing services within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 56.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E356 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E356

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SEVEN: GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS - Article 356 (ex Article 312 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0198 - 0198 *

Article 356

(ex Article 312 TEC)

This Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12006E028 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E028

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE I - Free movement of goods - Chapter 2 - Prohibition of quantitative restrictions between Member States - Article 28 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0052 - 0052 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0047 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0189 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0015 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 28

Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.

--------------------------------------------------
#### Amos W. Wright et al., as Executors of Mary W. Wright, Deceased, Respondents, v. Frederick W. Wright et al., Appellants.

*Wright v. Wright,*114 App. Div. 900, affirmed.

(Argued December 9, 1907;

decided December 20, 1907.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 12, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for the construction of a will.

*Jacob Maries*and *William Z. Lamed*for appellants.

*Wilson M. Powell*for respondents.

Judgment •affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Wernee, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5294 

To repeal requirements for reports on unfunded priorities from the 

Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2024 

Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To repeal requirements for reports on unfunded priorities 

from the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Streamline Pentagon 

5 Spending Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REPORTS ON UNFUNDED PRIORITIES. 

7 (a) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The following provisions of 

9 title 10, United States Code, are repealed: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 5294 IS

1 (A) Section 222a. 

2 (B) Section 222b. 

3 (C) Section 222e (as added by section 211 

4 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

5 Fiscal Year 2024 (Public Law 118–31; 137 

6 Stat. 182)). 

7 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—The table of sec8 tions at the beginning of chapter 9 of such title is 

9 amended by striking the items relating to sections 

10 222a, 222b, and 222e (as added by section 211 of 

11 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

12 Year 2024 (Public Law 118–31; 137 Stat. 182)). 

13 (b) MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.—Section 

14 2806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

15 Year 2018 (Public Law 115–91; 10 U.S.C. 222a note) is 

16 repealed. 

17 (c) NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRA18 TION.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 4716 of the Atomic 

20 Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2756) is repealed. 

21 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of con22 tents for the Atomic Energy Defense Act is amended 

23 by striking the item relating to section 4716. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# Map            Canada.