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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8330 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase access to accelerated 

nursing degree programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Ms. STEVENS (for herself and Mr. JOYCE of Ohio) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase access 

to accelerated nursing degree programs, 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 ‘‘Stop Nurse Shortages 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACCELERATED NURSING DEGREE PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 831(a) of the Public 

8 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296p(a)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

10 end; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8330 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

3 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) creating, expanding, or supporting an ac5 celerated nursing degree program at a school of 

6 nursing (including by hiring and retaining faculty 

7 and preceptors, increasing the number of clinical 

8 training sites, and offering student financial assist9 ance) to increase the number of graduating nurses, 

10 including graduates who are from disadvantaged 

11 backgrounds (including racial and ethnic minorities 

12 underrepresented among registered nurses and ad13 vanced practice registered nurses).’’. 

14 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

15 871 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 298d) 

16 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(c) ACCELERATED NURSING DEGREE PROGRAMS.— 

18 In addition to amounts made available under paragraph 

19 (1), for the purpose of carrying out section 831(a)(3), 

20 there are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for 

21 each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028.’’. 

22 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 4 years 

23 after the date on which the first grant or contract is made 

24 under paragraph (3) of section 831(a) of the Public 

25 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296p(a)), as added by subVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:24 Jun 08, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8330.IH H8330

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8330 IH

1 section (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

2 shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

3 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

4 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a 

5 report on— 

6 (1) the number of nursing students, 

7 disaggregated by grantee, who enrolled at institu8 tions receiving grants under such paragraph (3); 

9 (2) the number of nursing students who grad10 uated from such institutions; and 

11 (3) the number of accelerated nursing degree 

12 programs established by such grants. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 13.1

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tzvika Shukhman, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, certify that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: July 12, 2006

                                                       By: /s/ Tzvika Shukhman
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Tzvika Shukhman
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       and Chairman of the Board
#### Christine Canosa, Respondent-Appellant, v Dale M. Abadir, Appellant-Respondent, and Michael F. Morrissey, Respondent.

[635 NYS2d 490]

—In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, (1) the defendant Dale M. Abadir appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated April 12, 1993, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him, and (2) the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), dated July 25, 1994, which granted the application by Dale M. Abadir to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him, granted the cross motion by the defendant Michael F. Morrissey to dismiss the complaint as to him, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

*580The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216. The plaintiff unreasonably delayed the prosecution of her claims for at least six years after her representation by counsel in this case ended. At that point, the action was already five years old.

Moreover it was proper for the court to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3126, which provides for imposition of penalties for refusal to comply with court orders. The plaintiff had refused, without just cause, to obey the court’s previous order that she submit to the defendants’ outstanding demands for physical and psychological examinations *(see,*CPLR 3121). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.
Rev 0 (9/08) 

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments” 

Docket: FAA-2011-0547 Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-13-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted. 

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal. 

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Three domestic operators and two CAA Engineers (Australia, Japan) requested that we include 

additional engine models in section (c)Applicability of AD 2011-15-10. Specifically, to add: 

Teledyne Continental Motors models TSIO-520-WB, TSIO-360-RB and LTSIO-360-RB; 

Superior Air Parts Engines IO-360-C3A1; and Lycoming models TIO-541-E1A4, -E1B4, -E1C4 

and -E1D4. The FAA concurs and will supercede AD 2011-15-10 with a new AD that adds all 

known affected engine models. 

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD. 

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Neil Duggan, ACE-118A_____ 11/15/2011__ 

Name: Date: 

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
(Reap. Dec. 9559)

#### Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States

Entry No. 3619.

(Decided December 16, 1959)

*Bharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto that the metal bird cages with or without stands and bird baths, and the issues in the appeal for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues in *Spratt’s Patent (America) Ltd.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 583, Reap. Dec. 8285 and that the record in said case be incorporated with the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there is no foreign, export or United States value (as those values are defined in section 402 (c), *575(d) or (e)) for such or similar merchandise and that the statutory cost of production of the merchandise is equal to the invoice prices less discounts of *2%*and 2%%.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this appeal be submitted on this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value is equal to the invoice prices, less discounts of 2 per centum and *2y2*per centum, and I so hold.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 61918.

#### J. L. Hopkins Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 229523-K, etc. (New York).

*550Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *B. L. Lemke & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 253, C. D. 1937), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–011 2003

108th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 108–35

PLAN COLOMBIA/ANDEAN COUNTERDRUG INITIATIVE 

SEMI-ANNUAL OBLIGATION REPORT

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

A REPORT DETAILING THE PROGRESS OF SPENDING BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DURING THE LAST TWO QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 IN SUPPORT OF PLAN COLOMBIA, PURSUANT TO 

PUB. L. 106–246, SEC. 3204(e) (114 STAT. 576)

FEBRUARY 5, 2003.—Referred jointly to the Committees on International 

Relations and Appropriations, and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1)

To the Congress of the United States: 

Pursuant to Public Law 106–246, section 3204(e), I am providing 

a report prepared by my Administration detailing the progress of 

spending by the executive branch during the last two quarters of 

Fiscal Year 2002 in support of Plan Colombia.

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 4, 2003. 

(3)


Insert offset folio 3 here HD35.001
4


Insert offset folio 4 here HD35.002
5


Insert offset folio 5 here HD35.003
6


Insert offset folio 6 here HD35.004
7


Insert offset folio 7 here HD35.005
8


Insert offset folio 8 here HD35.006
9


Insert offset folio 9 here HD35.007
10


Insert offset folio 10 here HD35.008
11


Insert offset folio 11 here HD35.009
12


Insert offset folio 12 here HD35.010
----- ----------------------------------------

-

March 29, 2013 

VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

George T. Czerniak 

Region 5 

77 W. Jackson Boulevard (A-18J) Chicago, Illinois 60604-3509 

G)VEOLIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

Re: Cmmnents ofVeolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. on USEPA's Proposed Reopening 

of Air Pollution Control Title V Pennit 

Dear Mr. Czerniak: 

Veolia ES Teclmical Solutions, L.L.C. (Veolia) has submitted comments on the United States 

Enviromnental Protection Agency's proposed reopening ofthe Air Pollution Control Title V 

Pennit to Operate issued to Veolia. 

Veolia appreciates USEP A's willingness to consider its views and comments with regard to the 

reopening. Similarly, Veolia looks forward to working with the Agency begim1ing on or before 

Ap1il 12, 2013 with regard to the upcoming Title V renewal process. 

Veolia continues to believe the most effective way to reduce air emissions is not through the 

changes contained in the proposed permit reopening, but rather through the installation of 

additional pollution control equipment. Veolia is committed to spending significant resources on 

pollution control equipment provided the conect approvals are in place and we are able to 

resolve the valious open issues concerning our Title V permit. We would appreciate an 

opportunity to meet with you to further explain and discuss this proposal. 

Veolia believes that, by partnering with the Agency, solutions can be achieved that will allow 

Veolia to continue to provide its vital service to society through the efficient, effective and safe 

destmction of hazardous waste ( destmction which is mandated for many forms of hazardous 

waste by USEPA regulations) while also providing assurances that the enviromnent is protected
------------- -- - - --------------

G)veOLIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

Veolia believes that the above proposal is the single best way to reduce emissions and protect the 

enviromnent, while allowing Veolia to remain an active, vibrant and employment-providing 

participant in the Southern Illinois economy. 

Please me know if such a meeting would be of interest to you; if so, I will call you to arrange 

a meeting with our respective staffs. 

Thank you. 

Very truly yours, 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

Cc: U.S. Representative William Enyart 

U.S. Representative John Shimkus
October 3, 1949

No. 53616.

Suit 4608.

#### E. C. Lineiro *v.*United States.

C. D. 1125 reversed June 28, 1949. C. A. D. 411.
#### In the Matter of William Morin et al., Petitioners, v William F. Gallagher, as Supervisor of the Town of Harrietstown, Franklin County, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 632]

—Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from the office of Town Supervisor of the Town of Harrietstown, Franklin County.

Petitioners, residents of the Town of Harrietstown, Franklin County, commenced this proceeding to remove respondent from his position as Town Supervisor. Petitioners allege that (1) respondent neglected to properly post notice of several special meetings of the town board, and to properly notify the town board members of these meetings, (2) at one such meeting respondent authorized a Federal grant application and reserved the authority to commit matching funds on the town’s behalf should the application be approved, and (3) respondent allowed certain town residents to obtain an improper zoning variance and interfered with the zoning officer’s performance of her duties with respect to said variance. Respondent denies these *766allegations and moves to dismiss the petition on the ground, *inter alia,*that the petition fails to state a cause of action. We grant respondent’s motion.

The allegations contained in the petition, even if accepted as true, do not rise to the level required for removal from office. Courts have consistently refused to remove officials from office pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 absent "allegations of self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust” *(Matter of Deats v Carpenter,*61 AD2d 320, 322; *see, Matter of Smith v Perlman,*105 AD2d 878; *Matter of Greco v MacLean,*99 AD2d 810, 811). The allegations set forth here are not of this magnitude, but rather involve, at most, "minor neglect of duties, administrative oversights, or violations of law”, which do not, in general, warrant removal *(Matter of Deats v Carpenter, supra,*at 322). Accordingly, we conclude that the petition fails to state a cause of action and must be dismissed. In addition, we conclude that an award of sanctions against petitioners, as requested by respondent, is not warranted in this instance.

Crew III, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed, with $100 costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11

                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings

         Set forth below is the basis for the computation of earnings per share
for periods shown.


                                              Years Ended December 31,
                                      ---------------------------------------
February 13, 2006                        2005          2004            2003
                                      ---------        -------        -------
Earnings Per Common Share
Basic                                $     0.63       $   1.33       $   0.17
Average Shares Outstanding            1,647,645        822,250        822,250
Diluted                              $     0.62       $   1.33       $   0.17
Average Shares Outstanding            1,672,928        822,250        822,250
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  consent  to the  incorporation  in this  Annual  report  on Form  10-KSB  of
MAXPLANET  CORP. of our report dated September 22, 2000 except for Note 15 as to
which the date is October 17, 2000, on our audits of the financial statements of
MAXPLANET  CORP. as of March 31, 2000 and for the years ended March 31, 2000 and
1999, which report appears on page F-1 in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.



                                        EHRENKRANTZ STERLING & CO. LLC

Livingston, New Jersey
November 15, 2000
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 20, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00483

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G.I., a child,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 00452

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief

is due on November 18, 2015. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8278 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend certain telehealth 

flexibilities with respect to hospice care under the Medicare program, 

and to establish a modifier for recertifications of hospice care eligibility 

conducted through telehealth. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2024 

Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

certain telehealth flexibilities with respect to hospice care 

under the Medicare program, and to establish a modifier 

for recertifications of hospice care eligibility conducted 

through telehealth. 

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 ‘‘Hospice Recertification 

5 Flexibility Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8278 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN TELEHEALTH FLEXIBILI2 TIES. 

3 Section 1814(a)(7)(D)(i)(II) of the Social Security 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(D)(i)(II)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘ending on December 31, 2024’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘ending on December 31, 2026’’; and 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘, except that this subclause 

8 shall not apply in the case of such an encounter with 

9 an individual occurring on or after January 1, 2025, 

10 if such individual is located in an area that is sub11 ject to a moratorium on the enrollment of hospice 

12 programs under this title pursuant to section 

13 1866(j)(7), if such individual is receiving hospice 

14 care from a provider that is subject to enhanced 

15 oversight under this title pursuant to section 

16 1866(j)(3), or if such encounter is performed by a 

17 hospice physician or nurse practitioner who is not 

18 enrolled under section 1866(j) and is not an opt-out 

19 physician or practitioner (as defined in section 

20 1802(b)(6)(D))’’ before the semicolon. 

21 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF MODIFIER FOR RECERTIFI22 CATIONS OF HOSPICE CARE ELIGIBILITY 

23 CONDUCTED THROUGH TELEHEALTH. 

24 Section 1814(a)(7)(D)(i)(II) of the Social Security 

25 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(D)(i)(II)), as amended by sec26 tion 2, is further amended by inserting ‘‘, provided that, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8278 IH

1 in the case of such an encounter occurring on or after 

2 the date that is 2 years after the date of the enactment 

3 of the Hospice Recertification Flexibility Act, such physi4 cian or nurse practitioner includes in any claim for such 

5 encounter one or more modifiers or codes specified by the 

6 Secretary to indicate that such encounter was furnished 

7 through telehealth’’ after ‘‘as determined appropriate by 

8 the Secretary’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

s0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139044 

PATSY L. FRENCH, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139044 

 COA: 282718 

Muskegon CC: 06-044752-CH 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., d/b/a 

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, 

Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant, 

and 

JOHN D. FLYNN, Personal Representative of the 

Estate of CALVIN GREEN FRENCH, JR., 

Third-Party Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

BARBARA P. HERVEY BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL MARY LOU KEEL SCOTT WALKER MICHELLE M. SLAUGHTER JESSE F. MCCLURE, III JUDGES 

# C OURT OF 

# C RIMINAL 

# A PPEALS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701 W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA 

## September 20, 2023
5th Court Of Appeals Clerk Lisa Matz 600 Commerce, 2nd Floor Dallas, TX 75202 * Delivered Via E-Mail *

Re: Continental Heritage Insurance Company, Agent Pat Kinnard, D/B/A Pat Kinnard Bail Bonds CCA No. PD-0018-23 COA No. 05-20-01005-CV Trial Court Case No. F18-18863-J
The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.
Sincerely,

Deana Williamson, Clerk

cc: State Prosecuting Attorney (Delivered Via E-Mail) District Clerk Dallas County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Presiding Judge Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Niles Illich (Delivered Via E-Mail) District Attorney Dallas County (Delivered Via E-Mail) David Villafuerte (Delivered Via E-Mail)
No. 53628.

protests 92453-K, etc. (New York).

#### Greig, Lawrence & Hoyt, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.