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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 426 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and provide an 

inflation adjustment for the limitation on distributions from qualified 

tuition programs that may be used for elementary and secondary tuition. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2023 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

and provide an inflation adjustment for the limitation 

on distributions from qualified tuition programs that may 

be used for elementary and secondary tuition. 

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 ‘‘Inflation-Adjusted 

5 Education Investment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 426 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE ON LIMITATION ON EXPENSES USED FOR 

2 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TUITION. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of section 

4 529(e)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$12,000’’. 

6 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 529(e)(3) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

10 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any 

11 taxable year beginning in a calendar year 

12 after 2023, the $12,000 amount in sub13 paragraph (A) shall be increased by an 

14 amount equal to— 

15 ‘‘(I) such dollar amount, multi16 plied by 

17 ‘‘(II) the cost-of-living adjust18 ment determined under section 1(f)(3) 

19 for the calendar year in which the tax20 able year begins, determined by sub21 stituting ‘calendar year 2022’ for ‘cal22 endar year 2016’ in subparagraph 

23 (A)(ii) thereof. 

24 ‘‘(ii) ROUNDING.—Any increase deter25 mined under clause (i) shall be rounded to 

26 the nearest multiple of $500.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 426 IS

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```
Medicare: Tighter Rules Needed to Curtail Overcharges for Therapy in
Nursing Homes (Letter Report, 03/30/95, GAO/HEHS-95-23).

Nursing homes and rehabilitation centers are taking advantage of
ambiguous payment rules and lack of guidelines to bill Medicare at
inflated rates for therapy services.  State averages for physical,
occupational, and speech therapists' salaries range from about $12 to
$25 per hour, but Medicare has been charged upwards of $600 per hour.
The extent of overcharging and its precise impact on Medicaid outlays
are unclear; however, billing schemes uncovered in recent years suggest
that the problem is nationwide and growing in magnitude.  Extraordinary
markups on therapy can result from providers exploiting regulatory
ambiguity and weaknesses in Medicare's payment rules. Payment rules and
procedures developed when the therapy industry was much smaller and less
sophisticated have proved no match for increasingly complex business
practices designed to generate increased Medicare revenue and skirt
program controls.  Although the overbilling problem has been known since
1990, no action has been taken to close loopholes that allow payment for
these overcharges.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-95-23
     TITLE:  Medicare: Tighter Rules Needed to Curtail Overcharges for 
             Therapy in Nursing Homes
      DATE:  03/30/95
   SUBJECT:  Medicare programs
             Nursing homes
             Billing procedures
             Therapy
             Medical fees
             Overpayments
             Medical expense claims
             Insurance claims
             Health insurance cost control
             Beneficiaries
IDENTIFIER:  Medicaid Program
             
************************************************************************

We regret that the full text of this item is presently unavailable.

See the GAO FAQ - Section 2.0 for printed copy ordering information.
The FAQ is automatically retrieved with all WAIS search results or 
can be obtained by sending e-mail to: [email protected]
```
No. 50973.

#### Protest 13349-K of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in (i) Registration Statements on Form S-16, File Nos. 2-51894,
2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654; (ii) Registration Statements on Form S-8, File
Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443, 33-54555,
333-08059, 333-08087, 333-60839, 333-42178 and 333-53908; and (iii) Registration
Statements on Form S-3, File Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698,
33-44871, 33-45091, 33-46999, 33-54317, 33-69432, 333-04385, 333-40869,
333-44421, 333-55921, 333-68257, 333-91257, 333-54896 and 333-55866 of our
report dated February 2, 1999 (except with respect to the matters discussed in
Note 6 to the December 31, 2000 consolidated financial statements, as to which
the dates are March 16, 2000 and February 14, 2001), on the consolidated
financial statements of Kinder Morgan, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 1998 included in this Form 10-K/A.


                                                        /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 4, 2001
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND R ADIATION July 2, 2015 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Files on CD for EPA - HQ - OAR - 2014 - 0827 - DRAFT - 0453 for GEM

– Greenhouse Gas

Emission Model Executable File FROM: Christine Brunner

Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Qualit y TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium - and Heav y - Duty

Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 4 - 0827 The enclosed CD contains the followi ng file associated with docket item EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 - 0827 - DRAFT - 0453. 1) GEM_P2v1.0_setup_x64.exe There is no restriction on this file.
Before the First Division,

May 1, 1947

No. 51677.

#### Protest 120627-K of Joseph H. Meyer Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). In accordance therewith the claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
#### In re Dennis Ray SUGGS, Petitioner.

No. 01-6261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 19, 2001.

Dennis Ray Suggs, Petitioner pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Ray Suggs petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He asks this court to direct the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition, alleging that the district court has delayed unreasonably. Writs of mandamus are extraordinary writs, and the power to issue is sparingly exercised. *See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct.,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Suggs’ petition does not set forth exceptional circumstances as would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus at this time. We note, however, that the district court has taken no action for over eight months. Accordingly, we deny Suggs’ petition without prejudice to his refiling it if the district court fails to act within a reasonable time. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-360]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending December 
29, 2006

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2006-26768.
    Date Filed: December 28, 2006.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Mail Vote 525--Resolution 010i,
TC23/123 Europe-Japan Korea,
Special Passenger Amending Resolution from Korea (Rep. of) to Europe.
Intended effective date: 15 January 2007.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Docket Officer, Docket Operations, Alternate Federal 
Register Liaison.
 [FR Doc. E7-360 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
RUDOLPH ANDREWS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4088

Opinion filed June 1, 2016.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Rudolph Andrews, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR THE
THREE MONTHS AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,251
<SECURITIES>                                    51,612
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,745
<PP&E>                                           7,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,245
<BONDS>                                            867
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       108,965
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,783
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,670
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,279)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/3/2023 1

Denied Temporary Restraining Order 

Prohibiting Destruction of Election Evidence 

Without a Complaint or Evidence 

Leaf v. Whitmer (Robert J. Jonker, W.D. Mich. 1:20-cv-1169) 

A district judge denied an application for a temporary restraining 

order against Michigan election officials’ destruction of election evidence after the 2020 general election. On the one hand, it was not 

clear that a valid case had been filed, because there was no complaint. On the other hand, the application asked the court to make 

speculative inferences without foundations. 

Subject: Voting irregularities. Topics: Election errors; absentee 

ballots. 

In the Western District of Michigan on December 6, 2020, seven Republicannominated 2020 presidential electors for Michigan and Barry County’s sheriff filed an application for a temporary restraining order requiring Michigan’s election officials not to “destroy or delete . . . election data, instruments, 

machines, and materials.”1

 The plaintiffs filed two additional slightly altered 

copies of their motion on the same and next days.2 On December 7, the court 

filed a notice that the case had been assigned to Judge Robert J. Jonker and 

the filing fee was still due.3

Judge Jonker denied the plaintiffs relief on the case’s second day: “For 

one thing, it is not clear to the Court whether Plaintiffs have even commenced an action” because the record did not include a complaint.4

 In addition, 

Plaintiffs’ Applications invite the Court to make speculative leaps towards a 

hazy and nebulous inference that there has been numerous instances of 

election fraud and that Defendants are destroying the evidence. There is 

simply nothing of record to infer as much, much less conclude that irreparable injury will occur before the defendants can be heard.5

Judge Jonker issued an order on January 22, 2021, that the plaintiffs show 

cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute it,6

 and 

the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on February 6.7

1. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion at 10, Leaf v. Whitmer, No 1:20-cv-1169 (W.D. 

Mich. Dec. 6, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motions, id. (Dec. 6 and 7, 2020), D.E. 2, 3. 

3. Notice, id. (Dec. 7, 2020), D.E. 4. 

4. Opinion at 2, id. (Dec. 7, 2020), D.E. 5, 2020 WL 12698016. 

5. Id. at 2–3; see Dave Boucher, Paul Egan & Clara Hendrickson, Courts Reject Claims of 

Fraud, Misconduct in Legal Challenges, Detroit Free Press, Dec. 13, 2020, at A11; Paul Egan, 

Federal Judge Rips Court Filing from Sheriff, Detroit Free Press, Dec. 9, 2020, at A6; Craig 

Mauger, Michigan Sheriff’s Conspiracy-Laden Election Suit Stalls, Detroit News, Dec. 9, 2020, 

at A5. 

6. Order, Leaf, No. 1:20-cv-1169 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 22, 2021), D.E. 6. 

7. Dismissal Notice, id. (Feb. 6, 2021), D.E. 8.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 3, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129397 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129397 

 COA: 245099 

Van Buren CC: 00-011976-FC 

JUNIOR FRED BLACKSTON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

REMAND this case to that court for reconsideration of the issue whether the trial court’s 

error, if any, in excluding the statements in question was harmless beyond a reasonable 

doubt. The court should fully evaluate the harmless error question by considering the 

volume of untainted evidence in support of the jury verdict, not just whether the 

declarants were effectively impeached with other inconsistent statements at the first trial. 

If the court concludes that the error was harmless, it should consider defendant’s 

remaining allegations of error. 

We do not retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

p1031 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 3, 2005 

Clerk
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements listed below of Irwin Financial Corporation of our report dated
January 24, 2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this
Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 17, 2003


REGISTRATION STATEMENTS:
No. 33-8506 on Form S-8 effective September 25, 1986
No. 33-25931 on Form S-8 effective December 28, 1988
No. 33-32783 on Form S-8 effective January 11, 1990
No. 2-72249 on Form S-3 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Form
S-16 effective January 17, 1990
No. 33-32783 on Form S-8 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective
April 9, 1990
No. 33-47680 on Form S-8 effective May 5, 1992
No. 2-72249 on Form S-3 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Form
S-16 effective April 7, 1994
No. 33-62671 on Form S-8 effective September 15, 1995
No. 33-62669 on Form S-8 effective September 15, 1995
No. 333-26197 on Form S-8 effective April 30, 1997
No. 333-80777 on Form S-8 effective June 16, 1999
No. 33-80800, as amended by Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 effective May 19,
2000
No. 333-41740 on Form S-8 effective July 19, 2000
No. 333-60748 on Form S-8 effective May 11, 2001
No. 333-69156 on Form S-8 effective September 7, 2001
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Barbara Riching, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Abgenix, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterlyreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report basedon such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Dated: May 10, 2004

 

 
|   |   /s/   BARBARA RICHING |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Barbara  Riching                                 |
|   | Senior  Director, Finance                        |
|   | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)    |

 

1

----