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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 663 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the waiting periods 

for disability insurance benefits and Medicare coverage for individuals 

with metastatic breast cancer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2023 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Ms. ERNST) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the waiting periods for disability insurance benefits and 

Medicare coverage for individuals with metastatic breast 

cancer, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Metastatic Breast Can5 cer Access to Care Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 663 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR INDIVID2 UALS WITH METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(a) of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter following 

6 subparagraph (E), by inserting ‘‘or metastatic 

7 breast cancer’’ after ‘‘amyotrophic lateral sclerosis’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ‘‘or (iii)’’ 

10 after ‘‘clause (ii)’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply with respect to applications for dis13 ability insurance benefits filed after the date of the enact14 ment of this Act. 

15 SEC. 3. WAIVER OF 24-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR MEDI16 CARE COVERAGE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH 

17 METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 226(h) of the Social Secu19 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 426(h)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

20 metastatic breast cancer’’ after ‘‘amyotrophic lateral scle21 rosis (ALS)’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

23 this section shall apply to benefits for months beginning 

24 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         304,881
<SECURITIES>                                   402,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,310)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               677,978
<PP&E>                                         132,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,411)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,816,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,282
<BONDS>                                        345,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,404,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,816,021
<SALES>                                         16,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,061
<CGS>                                           32,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (100,158)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (100,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (100,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.51)


</TABLE>
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS 

Convened January 3, 1983 FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Monday, September 26, 1983 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WILLIAM F. HILDENBRAND, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Mar 8, 1983-- Motion entered to reconsider the vote by which the resolution of 

rauf1cat1on to the Montreal Protocols No. 3 and 4 (Ex. B., 95-1) was defeated--Mr. 

Baker. 
1 

TREATIES 

Calendar Treat) Subject Reported 

No Doc No Bv 

1 EX B. Montreal A viatton Protocols Nos 3 and 4 Feb 10 83 Reported 

95-1 favorably, by Mr. Percy 

Comnuttee on Foreign 

Relations, w1th a proposed 

resolution of advice and 

consent to rallficat10n 

with condltlons (Prmted 

reuort--Ex Reut 98-1) 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nommee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

No No Bv 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

* 312 450-8 Wi11iam Perry Pendley, of Wyommg, to be an Sep 21, 83 Mr McClure, 

Assistant Secretary of the Intenor, v1ce Committee on Energy and 

Darnel N. Miller, Jr., resigned Natural Resources, without 

urm ted reuort. 

*S1gnd1es nomtnee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

In its order issued in response to this court’s remand for a report from the

magistrate judge and review by the district court, the district court accepts the

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51618

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COSME GONZALEZ-RODRIGUEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-417-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cosme Gonzalez-Rodriguez (Gonzalez) pleaded guilty to both counts of an

indictmentthat charged him with conspiracy to possess with intentto distribute

50 kilograms or more of marijuana and with possession with intent to distribute

50 kilograms or more of marijuana. The district court sentenced Gonzalez to 30

months of imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release.1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51618

magistrate judge’s recommendation to acceptthe appellant’s guilty plea, butthe

order only specifically mentionsthe first count of the indictment. It is clear from the record that the

district judge misspoke and that the magistrate’s report was accepted in its entirety.

2

In his sole issue on appeal, Gonzalez argues that the factual basis orally

recited at his rearraignment hearing was insufficient to support his guilty plea.

Gonzalez does not contend that the factual basis was insufficient to support a

conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Instead, he argues only that there was

no allegation of drug quantity in the recited factual basis that would support a

plea to an offense involving 50 kilograms or more of marijuana pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

Because Gonzalez raises this issue for the first time on appeal, it is

reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Palmer, 456 F.3d 484, 489 (5th

Cir. 2006). To prevail on plain-error review, Gonzalez must show that an error

occurred, that the error was plain, which means clear or obvious, and that the

error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

732-35 (1993). The indictment in this case, which was read aloud and to which

Gonzalez pleaded guilty, alleged the drug quantity at issue and was sufficient

to serve as the factual basis supporting Gonzalez’s pleas. See United States v.

Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 475 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, he has not shown

plain error. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-35.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E129 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E129

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title VIII: Employment - Article 129 **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0089 - 0089 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0236 - Consolidated version *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Three: Community policies

Title VIII: Employment

Article 129

Article 129

The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, may adopt incentive measures designed to encourage cooperation between Member States and to support their action in the field of employment through initiatives aimed at developing exchanges of information and best practices, providing comparative analysis and advice as well as promoting innovative approaches and evaluating experiences, in particular by recourse to pilot projects.

Those measures shall not include harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States.
§ 214.8 Appeal content. ( a ) *General requirements for the contents of an appeal.* All appeals must include: ( 1 ) The appellant's name, mailing address, daytime telephone number, and email address, if any;
( 2 ) A brief description of the decision being appealed, including the name and title of the Responsible Official and the date of the decision;
( 3 ) The title or type and, if applicable, identification number for the written authorization and the date of application for or issuance of the written authorization, if applicable;
( 4 ) A statement of how the appellant is adversely affected by the decision being appealed;
( 5 ) A statement of the relevant facts underlying the decision being appealed;
( 6 ) A discussion of issues raised by the decision being appealed, including identification of any laws, regulations, or policies that were allegedly violated in reaching the decision being appealed;
( 7 ) A statement as to whether and how the appellant has attempted to resolve the issues under appeal with the Responsible Official and the date and outcome of those efforts;
( 8 ) A statement of the relief sought;
( 9 ) Any documents and other information upon which the appellant relies; and
( 10 ) The appellant's signature and the date.
( b ) *Specific requirements for the contents of an appeal.* In addition to the general requirements in § 214.8(a), the following specific requirements must be included in an appeal, where applicable: ( 1 ) A request for an oral presentation under § 214.16;
( 2 ) A request for a stay under § 214.13; and
( 3 ) A request to participate in a state mediation program regarding certain term grazing permit disputes under 36 CFR part 222, subpart B.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 695 

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 

that impose new information reporting requirements with respect to 

digital asset transfers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2023 

Mr. CRUZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the provisions of the Infrastructure Investment 

and Jobs Act that impose new information reporting 

requirements with respect to digital asset transfers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NEW INFORMATION REPORTING 

4 REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO DIGITAL 

5 ASSET TRANSFERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by section 

7 80603 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act are 

8 repealed and the provisions of law amended by such sec9 tion are restored as if such section had never been enacted. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 695 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub2 section (a) shall take effect on the date of enactment of 

3 this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Whitmore, appellant, v. Van, Steenbergh.

*Order of a/rrest—false representations,*

An order of arrest was granted, upon affidavits showing that credit for goods was given to the defendant upon representations as to his financial condition, and that his property was *unincumbered;*which representations were untrue. *Held,*that the order was properly granted.

The defendant moved to vacate the order of arrest, upon affidavits denying the making of the representations, and setting up a special partnership agreement between himself and the plaintiff, the existence of which was denied by the latter, and his denial was corroborated by three witnesses. The defendant failed to establish the making of the agreement, or a course of dealing under it. *Held,*that under these circumstances a motion to vacate the order of arrest should he denied.

*669Appeal from an order of the court at special term vacating an order for the arrest of defendant.

*Okarles H. Smith, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John N. Lewis,*for respondent.

Barrett, J.

The opinion contains only a review of the evidence, and a statement of the conclusions set forth in the head-notes, and it is not believed important to publish it in full.

*Order reversed.*
§ 1153.110 Self-evaluation. ( a ) The agency shall, by August 24, 1987, evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part, and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including handicapped persons or organizations representing handicapped persons, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The agency shall, until three years following the completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified, and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
#### § 9.305 Environmental compliance.

Each AMRAP agency is responsible for obtaining all required Federal, State, and local permits and must provide sufficient information to the NPS to ensure appropriate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 *et seq.*), and other applicable statutes.
Order filed September 17 , 2015 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 15
- 00746
- CV

____________ IN RE GEICO INSURANC E COMPANY , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. 2013
- 50259
- A



### ORDER On September 3, 2015, relator GEICO Insurance Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. Relator asks this court to order the Honorable Robert Schaffer, Judge of the 152nd District Court, in Harris County , Texa s, to set aside his o rder dated November 1 7, 2014 lifting the abatement of Linda Holman’s extra

- contractual claims , entered in trial court number 2013

- 50259

- A, styled LindaHolman v. GEICO Insurance Company . Relator claims respondent abused his

discretion by lifting the abatement , urging that Holman’s extra

- contractual claims are not ripe until Holman’s breach of contract claim against GEICO is adjudicated. However, the order of severance signed on June 5, 2014, which severed the extra

- contractual claims, d id not expressly sever p laintiff Linda Holman’s breach of contract claim against GEICO, and that breach of contract claim appears to have remained as part of cause number 2013

- 50259 . On September 10, 2014 , the trial court signed a judgment that states, am ong other things, “ This judgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and is appealable

. ” Moreover, t his judgment does not award plaintiff any relief against GEICO. We request that both GEICO and Linda Holman, on or before September 30 , 2015 , fi le letter briefs addressing the issue of (a) whether the judgment signed on September 10, 2014 is a final judgment under Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corporation , 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001), and, if so, (b) whether that judgment adjudicated Holman ’s breach of contrac t claim against GEICO

. The court also extends the time for the filing of Holman’s response to the petition for writ of mandamus until September 30 , 2015.
PER CURIAM
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNeural Network and Regression Approximations in High Speed Civil Transport Aircraft Design OptimizationNonlinear mathematical-programming-based design optimization can be an elegant method. However, the calculations required to generate the merit function, constraints, and their gradients, which are frequently required, can make the process computational intensive. The computational burden can be greatly reduced by using approximating analyzers derived from an original analyzer utilizing neural networks and linear regression methods. The experience gained from using both of these approximation methods in the design optimization of a high speed civil transport aircraft is the subject of this paper. The Langley Research Center's Flight Optimization System was selected for the aircraft analysis. This software was exercised to generate a set of training data with which a neural network and a regression method were trained, thereby producing the two approximating analyzers. The derived analyzers were coupled to the Lewis Research Center's CometBoards test bed to provide the optimization capability. With the combined software, both approximation methods were examined for use in aircraft design optimization, and both performed satisfactorily. The CPU time for solution of the problem, which had been measured in hours, was reduced to minutes with the neural network approximation and to seconds with the regression method. Instability encountered in the aircraft analysis software at certain design points was also eliminated. On the other hand, there were costs and difficulties associated with training the approximating analyzers. The CPU time required to generate the input-output pairs and to train the approximating analyzers was seven times that required for solution of the problem.Document ID19980151078Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPatniak, Surya N.*(Ohio Aerospace Inst. Cleveland, OH United States)*Guptill, James D.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Hopkins, Dale A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Lavelle, Thomas M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1998Subject CategoryNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:206316E-10872NASA/TM-1998-206316Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-22-13Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980151078.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
# Euroopan unionin C 94A/28.

| | ISSN 1725-2490 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 94A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 50. vuosikerta28. huhtikuu 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2490

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 94A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

50. vuosikerta28. huhtikuu 2007

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2007/C 094A/01 | Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimesta kilpailusta: Tutkimusjohtaja — ennusteasiantuntija — Viite: EF/TA/07/02 (EUVL C 68 A, 24.3.2007) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2007/C 094A/01

Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimesta kilpailusta: Tutkimusjohtaja — ennusteasiantuntija — Viite: EF/TA/07/02 (EUVL C 68 A, 24.3.2007)

1

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 28.4.2007 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 94/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 94/1

---

Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimesta kilpailusta: Tutkimusjohtaja — ennusteasiantuntija — Viite: EF/TA/07/02

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 68 A, 24. maaliskuuta 2007
  )

(2007/C 94 A/01)

Sivulla 4, osastossa V HAKEMUKSET:

korvataan:

”20. huhtikuuta 2007”

seuraavasti:

”1. kesäkuuta 2007”.

---
# EUR-Lex - 12004V183 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V183

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER II — ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY - Section 1 — Economic policy - Article III-183 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0078 - 0078 *

Article III-183

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt European regulations or decisions specifying definitions for the application of the prohibitions laid down in Articles III-181 and III-182 and in this Article. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 41267 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee

v.
HECTOR SAUCEDO

- ESPINOZA , Defendant

– Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09

- CR

- 1435

- 1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM : * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Saucedo

Espinoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Saucedo

- Espinoza h a s not fil ed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 25, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-41267 Document: 00512745333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/25/2014No. 13

- 41267
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
t o withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-41267 Document: 00512745333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/25/2014