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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2118 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2118

 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to provide 
 for more detailed repayment procedures for assistance received under 
                   the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2009

Mr. McCarthy of California (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. McCotter, Mr. 
 Neugebauer, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lance, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Garrett of New 
   Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to provide 
 for more detailed repayment procedures for assistance received under 
                   the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL REPAYMENT PROCEDURES.

    (a) In General.--Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new section:

``SEC. 137. ADDITIONAL REPAYMENT PROCEDURES.

    ``Not later than 15 days after the Secretary is notified by a 
financial institution that such financial institution is prepared to 
immediately repay all assistance received by such institution under 
this title, the Secretary, in consultation with the appropriate Federal 
banking agency (as such term is defined in section 3(q) of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(q))), if any, shall either--
            ``(1) accept such repayment; or
            ``(2) notify such institution, in writing, that the 
        individual financial position of such institution does not 
        currently permit the repayment of such assistance, and include 
        in such notice information detailing steps the institution can 
        take to satisfy the Secretary and the appropriate Federal 
        banking agency, if any, that the institution is in a position 
        to repay such assistance.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 136 the 
following new item:

``137. Additional repayment procedures.''.
                                 <all>
```
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

TONA GRIMMETT, 

 Plaintiff, 

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN SURGICAL 

HOSPITAL, LLC, OAKLAND MRI, LLC, and 

MICHIGAN AMBULATORY SURGICAL 

CENTER, LLC, 

 Intervening Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 14-14646 

ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HON. AVERN COHN 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (Doc. 70) 

This is a no-fault benefits case. Plaintiffs include the driver—the insured—and 

medical providers. The accident took place on March 4, 2013. The claim consists of: 

 medical services and expenses, 

 replacement services, 

 attendant care, and 

 work loss 
2 

Exhibit A reflects the chronology of the accident and medical services and 

expenses. There is in the record no documentation of replacement services, work loss 

or attendant care. 

Defendant insurance company denies liability on several grounds including lack 

of causation, lack of documentation and fraud. 

On May 26, 2015, plaintiff was videod engaged in activities which may challenge 

any claim she suffered from a physical condition that disabled her. A claim for benefits 

that is legitimate at its inception may lose its legitimacy at some point. The evidence as 

to fraudulent conduct vitiating the legitimacy of plaintiff’s claim is ambiguous. If there is 

evidence of fraud, the date that the claim changed from a legitimate right to benefits to a 

fraudulent claim of benefits is uncertain. 

The record is long and complex, including contradictory medical opinions and 

representations of the parties as to documentary support for the claims made by plaintiff 

and third-party medical providers. 

The Court cannot say there is no genuine issue of material fact over various 

items of damages or the condition of plaintiff on various dates forward from the 

accident. Accordingly, the record is not ripe for summary judgment in defendant’s favor 

as to any particular item of insurable damages suffered by plaintiff or any third-party 

plaintiff. 
3 

SO ORDERED. 

 S/Avern Cohn 

 AVERN COHN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 28, 2017 

 Detroit, Michigan
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.10 Filed 06/05/14 Page 1 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:1
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.11 Filed 06/05/14 Page 2 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 2 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:2
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.12 Filed 06/05/14 Page 3 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:4
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.13 Filed 06/05/14 Page 4 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:5
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.14 Filed 06/05/14 Page 5 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:6
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.15 Filed 06/05/14 Page 6 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:7
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.16 Filed 06/05/14 Page 7 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 4 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:8
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.17 Filed 06/05/14 Page 8 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 5 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:9
Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 5 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:10 Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.18 Filed 06/05/14 Page 9 of 14
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.19 Filed 06/05/14 Page 10 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 5 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:11
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.20 Filed 06/05/14 Page 11 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 5 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:12
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.21 Filed 06/05/14 Page 12 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 5 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:13
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.22 Filed 06/05/14 Page 13 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 7 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:23
Case 2:15-cr-20004-SJM-EAS ECF No. 3, PageID.23 Filed 06/05/14 Page 14 of 14 Case 2:14-mj-01011-DUTY Document 9 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:25
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

 

I, Charles T.Chrietzberg, Jr. certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisannual report on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 of Northern California Bancorp,Inc.;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee orregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 19, 2007 | /s/  Charles T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr.     |
|                     | Chairman  of the Board &     |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer         |

 

----
# C_2012126EN.01002703.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/27

---

Action brought on 10 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-102/11)

2012/C 126/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the implied decision by which the Commission refused to pay to the applicant travelling expenses from the place of his employment to his place of origin for the period 2005 to 2010.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision refusing the applicant’s claims set out in his complaint of 13 August 2010, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted and irrespective of whether the refusal was total or partial; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision refusing the applicant’s claims set out in his complaint of 13 August 2010, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted and irrespective of whether the refusal was total or partial;

| — | annul, quatenus opus est, the Note of 22 December 2010 bearing reference PMO.1/NS/AV D(2010) 986451; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, quatenus opus est, the Note of 22 December 2010 bearing reference PMO.1/NS/AV D(2010) 986451;

quatenus opus est

| — | annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claims set out in the complaint of 25 February 2011, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claims set out in the complaint of 25 February 2011, whatever the form in which the decision was adopted;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### § 167.10-50 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this part, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50381, Dec. 6, 1989]
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.488 Design and equipment for tanks carrying high melting point NLSs: Category B. Unless waived under § 153.491, for a ship to have its Certificate of Inspection or Certificate of Compliance endorsed allowing a tank to carry a Category B NLS with a melting point of 15 °C or more, the cargo tank must have— ( a ) An arrangement enabling the cargo to be heated before cargo transfer, using heat supplied by the ship or by another source; and
( b ) Sides and bottom separate from the ship's side or bottom shell plating.
§ 92.207 Nondiscrimination in health insurance coverage and other health-related coverage. ( a ) A covered entity must not, in providing or administering health insurance coverage or other health-related coverage, discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or any combination thereof.
( b ) A covered entity must not, in providing or administering health insurance coverage or other health-related coverage: ( 1 ) Deny, cancel, limit, or refuse to issue or renew health insurance coverage or other health-related coverage, or deny or limit coverage of a claim, or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or any combination thereof;
( 2 ) Have or implement marketing practices or benefit designs that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or any combination thereof, in health insurance coverage or other health-related coverage;
( 3 ) Deny or limit coverage, deny or limit coverage of a claim, or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, to an individual based upon the individual's sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded;
( 4 ) Have or implement a categorical coverage exclusion or limitation for all health services related to gender transition or other gender-affirming care;
( 5 ) Otherwise deny or limit coverage, deny or limit coverage of a claim, or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, for specific health services related to gender transition or other gender-affirming care if such denial, limitation, or restriction results in discrimination on the basis of sex; or
( 6 ) Have or implement benefit designs that do not provide or administer health insurance coverage or other health-related coverage in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities, including practices that result in the serious risk of institutionalization or segregation.
( c ) Nothing in this section requires coverage of any health service where the covered entity has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying or limiting coverage of the health service or determining that such health service fails to meet applicable coverage requirements, including reasonable medical management techniques such as medical necessity requirements. Such coverage denial or limitation must not be based on unlawful animus or bias, or constitute a pretext for discrimination. Nothing in this section is intended to preclude a covered entity from availing itself of protections described in §§ 92.3 and 92.302.
( d ) The enumeration of specific forms of discrimination in paragraph (b) of this section does not limit the general applicability of the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.018-7 Approval procedures. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76705 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) An application for approval of retroreflective material must be sent to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), Attn: Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509.
( b ) Each application for approval must contain— ( 1 ) The name and address of the applicant;
( 2 ) Two copies of plans or specifications of the material;
( 3 ) A detailed description of the quality control procedures used in manufacturing the material; and
( 4 ) A test report containing observations and results of approval testing conducted.
( c ) The Commandant advises the applicant whether the retroreflective material is approved. If the material is approved, an approval certificate is sent to the applicant.
[CGD 76-028, 44 FR 38786, July 2, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4783, Feb. 3, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-072, 60 FR 50467, Sept. 29, 1995; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50734, Sept. 27, 1996; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49238, Sept. 25, 2009; USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60162, Sept. 30, 2013]
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: September 18, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: September 12, 2014 Meeting with CA Legislature staff Regarding Proposed 

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 12, 2014

to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Kip Lipper, Consultant to President Pro Tempore Don Perata

Four others legislative aides/advisors

EPA 

Deborah Jordan, R9

Attachment

File: CA Legislature 111(d)_ 091214_Jordan
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2052 

To provide for special rules relating to assistance concerning the Greensburg, 

Kansas, tornado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2009 

Mr. MORAN of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To provide for special rules relating to assistance concerning 

the Greensburg, Kansas, tornado. 

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 ‘‘Greensburg, Kansas, 

5 Recovery Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS TO ADDRESS GREENS7 BURG, KANSAS, TORNADO. 

8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the 

9 case of any national emergency grant that was made 

10 under section 173 of the Workforce Investment Act of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2052 IH

1 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2918) to address the effects of the May 

2 4, 2007, Greensburg, Kansas, tornado, funds made avail3 able for such grant shall remain available for expenditure 

4 through June 30, 2010. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.201-4 Approval procedures. ( a ) Manufacturers that desire type approval should submit a written notice to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4) describing the product and its intended uses. The Commandant will evaluate this information and notify the manufacturer of the product's suitability for testing. The manufacturer should then contract directly with an accepted independent laboratory to perform the required tests and inspections.
( b ) Upon completion of the required testing and inspections, the manufacturer must submit either a written request for type approval to the Commandant (CG-ENG-4), United States Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, or electronically submit a request to *typeapproval@uscg.mil*. The request must indicate the name and address of the manufacturer, all product designations, and the address of all manufacturing facilities. The request must include a copy of the final fire test report and the production inspection procedures. From the information submitted, the Commandant determines whether or not the product is acceptable for type approval. If the product is determined to be acceptable, a type approval certificate valid for a 5-year period will be issued. If the product is not accepted, the manufacturer will be notified of the reasons why.
#### § 139.155 Appeals of suspension or revocation of approval.

Anyone directly affected by a decision to suspend or revoke an approval granted under this part may appeal the decision to the Coast Guard in accordance with the provisions of 46 CFR subpart 1.03.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.560 Cargo hose: Prototype test. ( a ) Each cargo hose must be of a type that passes a prototype test at a pressure of at least five times its maximum working pressure at or below the minimum service temperature.
( b ) Each cargo hose must not be the hose used in the prototype test.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1990 

To establish an Oleoresin Capsicum Spray Pilot Program in the Bureau 

of Prisons, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2009 

Mr. CARDOZA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To establish an Oleoresin Capsicum Spray Pilot Program 

in the Bureau of Prisons, 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 ‘‘Oleoresin Capsicum 

5 Spray Pilot Program Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OLEORESIN CAPSICUM SPRAY PILOT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) PILOT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Director of 

8 the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall conduct a pilot pro9 gram to determine the effectiveness of the routine issuance 

10 of Oleoresin Capsicum spray to staff. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1990 IH

1 (b) SCOPE OF PILOT PROGRAM.—The Director of the 

2 Federal Bureau of Prisons shall have the discretion to— 

3 (1) select the specific Bureau of Prisons institu4 tion or institutions participating in the pilot pro5 gram; 

6 (2) determine the length (but not to exceed 2 

7 years) of the pilot program; 

8 (3) select the type of Oleoresin Capsicum spray 

9 device utilized in the pilot program; and 

10 (4) determine which Bureau of Prisons staff 

11 will be authorized to participate in the pilot pro12 gram. 

13 (c) REQUIREMENTS SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF

14 APPROPRIATIONS.—The requirements of this section are 

15 subject to the availability of appropriations. 

16 (d) GAO REPORT.—The Government Accountability 

17 Office shall, not later than six months after the end of 

18 the pilot program, report to Congress an evaluation of the 

19 effects of the pilot program and provide any research and 

20 analysis that Office determines appropriate on tools to im21 prove officer safety in Federal prisons. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS