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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4278 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations 

to ensure due process rights for physicians before any termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional activity of such physicians 

or staff privileges of such physicians. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Mr. MARSHALL (for himself and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to issue regulations to ensure due process rights for 

physicians before any termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional activity of such physicians or 

staff privileges of such physicians. 

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 ‘‘Physician and Patient 

5 Safety Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4278 IS

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 

2 FOR PHYSICIANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

4 Human Services shall issue final regulations to provide 

5 that physicians who have been granted medical staff privi6 leges at a hospital have a fair hearing and appellate review 

7 through appropriate medical staff mechanisms before any 

8 termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional 

9 activity of such physicians or staff privileges of such physi10 cians at such hospital. 

11 (b) REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATIONS.—The regula12 tions described in subsection (a) shall provide that— 

13 (1) a hearing or appellate review may not be 

14 denied through a third-party contract; 

15 (2) a physician shall not be requested or re16 quired to waive their rights to such a hearing or ap17 pellate review as a condition of employment, either 

18 with the hospital or with a third-party contractor; 

19 and 

20 (3) any such hearing or appellate review shall 

21 be confidential and not reportable to any entity, in22 cluding the National Practitioner Data Bank or fu23 ture workplaces or employers, unless there is an on24 going threat to patient safety, or as otherwise re25 quired under the reporting requirements for hosVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Jun 08, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4278.IS S4278

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4278 IS

1 pitals established by the National Practitioner Data 

2 Bank. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The final regulations pro4 mulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later 

5 than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00346

- CR

J ADEN W

ALKER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 462nd District Court

of Denton County ( F21

- 2457

- 462 )

August 8, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu Ltd.;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 company as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer 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 company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control
over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Kunio NojiKunio NojiPresident, Chief Executive Officer 19
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Grebe,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| /s/ Michael J. Grebe                  |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Michael J. Grebe                      |   |   |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |
| May 16, 2005                          |   |   |   |   |

 

----
Before the Second Division,

December 2, 1954

No. 58550.

protests 164955-K (A), etc. (Buffalo).

#### Carey & Skinner, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of internal-combustion gasoline engines, carburetor type, or parts thereof, in chief value of metal, imported separately or in a knocked-down condition, with saws or together With an assortment of saw parts, and that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the engines, imported With saws, the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0065 - EN

*|*

# 52007AP0065

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 March 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection (COM(2005)0375 - C6-0279/2005 - 2005/0156(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 301 E , 13/12/2007 P. 0101 - 0101 *

P6_TA(2007)0065

Statistics on migration and international protection ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 March 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on migration and international protection (COM(2005)0375 — C6-0279/2005 — 2005/0156(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0375) [1],

- having regard to Articles 251(2) and 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0279/2005),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0004/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5665] 

The Industry Advisory Panel of Overseas Buildings Operations will meet on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The meeting will be held in room 1107 of the U.S. Department of State, located at 2201 C Street, NW., (entrance on 23rd Street) Washington, DC. For logistical and security reasons, it is imperative that everyone enter and exit using only the 23rd Street entrance. The majority of the meeting is devoted to an exchange of ideas between the Department's Bureau of Overseas Building Operations' senior management and the panel members, on design, operations and building maintenance. Members of the public are asked to kindly refrain from joining the discussion until Director Williams opens the discussion to the public. 

                    Entry to the building is controlled; to obtain pre-clearance for entry, members of the public planning to attend should provide, by February 2, 2007, their name, professional affiliation, date of birth, citizenship, and a valid government-issued ID number (i.e., U.S. government ID, U.S. military ID, passport, or drivers license (and state)) by e-mailing:                     *iapr@state.gov<mailto:iapr@state.gov>*. Due to limited space, please remember that only one person per company may register.                 

                    If you have any questions, please contact Andrea Specht at                     *spechtam@state.gov*                     or on (703) 516-1544.                 

Dated: January 7, 2007. 

Charles E. Williams, 

Director & Chief Operating Officer, Overseas Buildings Operations, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-421 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. ROMERO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0459 MCE CMK P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On August 3, 2005, petitioner submitted a notice of change of address. That

document was not served on respondent. Petitioner is advised that every document submitted to

the court for consideration must be served on respondent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5; Rule 11, Fed. R.

Governing § 2254 Cases. Documents not to be served electronically are usually served by

placing a copy in the U.S. Mail. If an attorney has filed a document with the court on behalf of

respondent, then documents submitted by petitioner must be served on that attorney and not on

the respondent himself. Every document submitted conventionally to the court (e.g., by a

prisoner proceeding pro se) must include a certificate stating the date an accurate copy of the

document was mailed to respondent or his attorney and the address to which it was mailed. See

Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 20 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days from the date of

this order petitioner shall serve a copy of the August 3, 2005 notice of change of address and file

proper proof of said service. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may

result in imposition of sanctions. 

DATED: August 10, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00459-MCE-CMK Document 20 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2363 WBS JFM PS

vs.

MARK L. BRYAN,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On August 3, 2005, defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for relief from

the judgment entered by this court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). On August 23, 2005, the

magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations

were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

relevant documents in the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported

by the record and by proper analysis.

///

Case 2:04-cv-02363-WBS -JFM Document 67 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendant’s August 3, 2005 motion for relief from judgment is denied.

DATED: September 19, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02363-WBS -JFM Document 67 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY M. JENNINGS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-2131 GEB GGH P

vs.

T. FAULKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. This court sent two orders to King Hall Civil Rights Clinic, directing the clinic to review

this case in order to determine whether they found this case appropriate for their appointment as

counsel. See Orders filed on March 11, 2005 and July 5, 2005. The Clinic has failed to respond

to either order and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff must proceed in this action pro se,

as he was cautioned in both orders might turn out to be the case, as it appears volunteer counsel

is not obtainable in this action. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order

upon Carter White at King Hall Civil Rights Clinic.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/20/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 - jenn2131.ncr

Case 2:04-cv-02131-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 51424.

#### Protests 823036-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2780
OPAL HERNANDEZ, wife of James Hernandez; JAMES HERNANDEZ, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus ARTHUR H. HOFFMAN; MARY C. HOFFMAN, wife of Arthur H. Hoffman; RAND W. HOFFMAN; CHERYL HOFFMAN, wife of Rand W. Hoffman; LAURA J. WETSCH, Attorney at Law; DANNY LEE ALLEN, Deputy Sheriff of Johnston County; R. FRANK GRAY, Attorney at Law, Defendants - Appellees, and KNOX V. JENKINS, Judge of Superior Court, County of Johnston, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-543-5-BR) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.23 Opal Hernandez, James Hernandez, Appellants Pro Se. Ralph Frank Gray, Laura J. Wetsch, JORDAN, PRICE, WALL, GRAY & JONES, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina; Howard Edwards Manning, Sr., Kristen Gardner Lingo, MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants ap peal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dismissing their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (1994) action. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hernandez v. Hoffman , No. CA-96-543-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Before Judge Watson,

January 10, 1968

No. R68/5.

reappraisements R63/13390 and R63/3295 (Highgate Springs).

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc., and A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *F. W. Myers & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 550, Reap. Dec. 10750), the court found and held that constructed value, as that value is defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for determining the value of the merchandise in question and that such value in each case was the entered value.
(Reap. Dec. 10068)

#### Mattel, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 2474; 54426

(Decided August 22, 1961)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*William E. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted these two appeals for reappraisement for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part hereof are limited to the merchandise shipped by Kohusi Boeki Kaisha, Ltd. of Japan.

> *4432. That the merchandise was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 19'56, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2nd Session.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the values found by the Appraiser less buying commission of 10% or 13% as noted on the invoices.

> 4. That the appeals for reappraisement set forth in Schedule “A”, as heretofore limited, are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165), and hold that such statutory value therefor is the values found by the appraiser, less buying commission of 10 per centum or 13 per centum, as noted on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 57288.

protests 171430-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### World Wide Trading Company and Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair-on leather, an upper leather made from calfskins, not in a form or shape suitable for conversion into footwear, the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Carey & Skinner, Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1436), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52032.

#### Dolliff & McGrath et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130054-K, etc. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9488)

#### Ross Products, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 33984.

(Decided August 10, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell*<6 *Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement on a stipulation upon the agreed facts in which I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis, for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved, and that such value, in each instance, is the entered unit value.

Judgment will issue accordingly.