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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2347 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the continued 

access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2012 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

the continued access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services. 

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 ‘‘Diagnostic Imaging 

5 Services Access Protection Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES. 

7 Section 1848(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1395w–4(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new subparagraph: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2347 IS

1 ‘‘(E) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF

2 MULTIPLE PROCEDURE PAYMENT REDUC3 TION.— 

4 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary 

5 shall not apply a multiple procedure pay6 ment reduction policy to the professional 

7 component of imaging services— 

8 ‘‘(I) furnished on or after the 

9 date that is 60 days after the date of 

10 the enactment of this subparagraph 

11 and before January 1, 2013; or 

12 ‘‘(II) furnished in 2013 or a sub13 sequent year unless the reduction is 

14 based on the analysis of an expert 

15 panel on diagnostic imaging services 

16 convened by the Institute of Medicine. 

17 ‘‘(ii) REQUEST.—The Secretary shall 

18 request that the Institute of Medicine con19 vene the expert panel described in clause 

20 (i)(II) and conduct an analysis of the ap21 propriateness of applying a multiple proce22 dure payment reduction policy to the pro23 fessional component of imaging services 

24 under this part. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2347 IS

1 ‘‘(iii) REQUIREMENT FOR ANAL2 YSIS.—In preparing the analysis described 

3 in clause (ii), the Institute of Medicine 

4 shall consult with national medical spe5 cialty societies with expertise in the field of 

6 diagnostic imaging services.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2014015EN.01001402.xml

| 18.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 November 2013 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)

(Case T-34/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark HERBA SHINE - Earlier national, Community and international word marks Herbacin - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Statement of reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

2014/C 15/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1), relating to an opposition procedure between Herbacin cosmetic GmbH and Laboratoire Garnier et Cie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2011 (Case R 2255/2010-1);

| 2. | Orders the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.

1

---
ALD
- 013 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No

. 22

- 2367

___________ IN RE: C. JOSEPH MOS

- BEY , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to D.N.J. Civ . No. 2 : 20

- cv - 20719 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

October 20, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 27, 2022 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM Pro se petitioner C. Joseph Mos

- Bey seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the
District Court to rule on a petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 225 4 . By order
entered o n August 31, 2022 , the District Court dismissed his petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. In light of the District Court’s action, Mos

- Bey’s

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it a s
moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
To the extent that Mos

- Bey discusses the District Court’s decision in his supplemental filings in this Court, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U .S. 367, 380

- 81 (2004). If Mos

- Bey wishes to seek appellate review of the District Court’s decision with respect to his habeas petition , he may file a notice of appeal in the District Court within the time period set forth in F ed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)( A )

.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: THOMAS M. CAGNEY,

 Debtor.

THOMAS M. CAGNEY,

 Appellant,

 v.

ANDREA J. SMITH,

 Appellee.

No. 11-60009

BAP No. 10-1035

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Pappas, Jury, and Bauer, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

JAN 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-60009

Thomas M. Cagney appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that an

Arizona state court civil judgment owed to Andrea J. Smith was nondischargeable

debt. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review

decisions of the BAP, and review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of

law and for clear error its findings of fact, Wickland Oil Co. v. Official Creditors’

Comm. (In re Wolverton Assocs.), 909 F.2d 1286, 1292 (9th Cir. 1990), and we

affirm. 

 The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Cagney assaulted

Smith with a shotgun given the evidence in the record, including Cagney’s guilty

plea to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See id. (bankruptcy court’s

factual findings should be affirmed unless, after reviewing all the evidence, there is

a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed” (citation

omitted)). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court properly determined that the debt to

Smith resulting from the aggravated assault was nondischargeable. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 523(a)(6) (debts obtained for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to

another entity are nondischargeable); Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-1203(A)(2) (“A person

commits assault by . . . [i]ntentionally placing another person in reasonable
3 11-60009

apprehension of imminent physical injury.”); id. § 13-1204 (A)(2) (providing that a

person commits aggravated assault if “the person uses a deadly weapon or

dangerous instrument”). 

Cagney’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

Cagney’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. 

AFFIRMED.
FRANCISCO BANKS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. 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. 1D 14

- 2906

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

. Andrew J. Decker, III , Judge

.

Francisco Banks, pro se

, Appellant.

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

Gener al, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 00-5591.

#### Villarreal *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2244 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in the identification 

of unclaimed and abandoned human remains to determine if any such 

remains are eligible for burial in a national cemetery, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist in 

the identification of unclaimed and abandoned human 

remains to determine if any such remains are eligible 

for burial in a national cemetery, 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 ‘‘Veterans Missing in 

5 America Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

7 Congress recognizes the tireless work and dedication 

8 of the members of the Missing in America Project, in conVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:02 Mar 29, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2244.IS S2244

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2244 IS

1 junction with numerous veterans service organizations, in 

2 identifying the unclaimed remains of veterans. 

3 SEC. 3. IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED AND ABANDONED 

4 HUMAN REMAINS. 

5 (a) IDENTIFICATION OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED

6 HUMAN REMAINS.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

7 shall cooperate with veterans service organizations to as8 sist entities in possession of unclaimed or abandoned 

9 human remains in determining if any such remains are 

10 the remains of veterans or other individuals eligible for 

11 burial in a national cemetery. 

12 (b) BURIAL OF UNCLAIMED OR ABANDONED HUMAN

13 REMAINS.—If the Secretary determines that any un14 claimed or abandoned human remains are the remains of 

15 a person who is eligible for burial in an open national cem16 etery under the control of the National Cemetery Adminis17 tration under section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, 

18 the Secretary shall provide for the burial of the remains 

19 and cover the cost of the burial of the remains and the 

20 cost of preparing the remains and transporting them to 

21 the place of burial, if the Secretary determines, with re22 spect to the remains— 

23 (1) that there is no next of kin or other person 

24 claiming the remains; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2244 IS

1 (2) that there are not available other sufficient 

2 resources to cover burial and funeral expenses. 

3 (c) CREATION OF NATIONAL DATABASE.—The Sec4 retary shall establish a database in which the Secretary 

5 shall enter the names of any veteran or other individual 

6 identified pursuant to subsection (a). The Secretary shall 

7 ensure that the database is publicly accessible. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013147EN.01001102.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2013 — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-105/13)

2013/C 147/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Can it be said to constitute a correct application of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with particular reference to Articles 34, 36 and 137, if a farmer with payment entitlements acquired on the basis of non-area-related production, allocated to the area in his possession, does not have a significant proportion of those entitlements paid out to him despite the fact that he declared the eligible area of the hectares which remained unchanged in his possession in good faith in accordance with the measuring method used by the Member State at the time of the activation of the payment entitlements under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, but subsequently rejected by the Commission, for the sole reason that the eligible area determined for purposes of the payment turns out to be smaller as the result of a changed measuring method?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

1

---
# C_2013189EN.01001401.xml

| 29.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 May 2013 — Peter Flood v Health Service Executive

(Case C-255/13)

2013/C 189/27

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Flood

Applicant:

Defendant: Health Service Executive

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is an insured citizen of a Member State (‘the First Member State’) who has been gravely ill for eleven years as a result of a serious medical condition which first manifested itself while that person was resident in the First Member State but was on holidays in another Member State (‘the Second Member State’) to be regarded as ‘staying’ in that Second Member State for that period for the purpose of either Article 19(1) or, alternatively, Article 20(1) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 883/2004 (1) where the person in question has been effectively compelled by reason of his acute medical illness and the convenient proximity to specialist medical care physically to remain in that Member State for that period?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems

1

OJ L 166, p. 1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20667]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5870-3]


National Drinking Water Advisory Council Operator Certification 
Working Group; Notice of Open Meeting

    Under Section 10(a)(2) of Pub. L. 92-423, ``The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Operator 
Certification Working Group of the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (42 
U.S.C. S300f et seq.), will be held on August 28 and 29, 1997, from 
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Quorum Room (lobby level), at the Loews 
L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. The 
meeting is open to the public to observe, but due to past experience, 
seating will be limited.
    The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the key standards for a 
State operator certification program. The working group members are 
meeting to discuss and comment on proposed position papers for 
deliberation by the advisory council. Statements from the public will 
be taken at the end of the meeting if time allows.
    For more information, please contact Richard Naylor, Designated 
Federal Officer, Operator Certification Working Group, U.S. EPA, Office 
of Ground Water and Drinking Water (4606), 401 M Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. The telephone number is (202) 260-5135 and the e-mail address 
is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac4cbd3c6c5d884d8c3c9c2cbd8ceeacfdacbc7cbc3c684cfdacb84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa949b83969588d4889399929b889eba9f8a9b979b9396d49f8a9bd49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: July 30, 1997.
Charlene Shaw,
Designated Federal Officer, National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
[FR Doc. 97-20667 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2012295EN.01002501.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 3 August 2012 — Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-378/12)

2012/C 295/45

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nnamdi Onuekwere

Applicants:

Defendants: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | In what circumstances, if any, will a period of imprisonment constitute legal residence for the purposes of the acquisition of a permanent right of residence under Article 16 of the Citizens Directive 2004/38 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In what circumstances, if any, will a period of imprisonment constitute legal residence for the purposes of the acquisition of a permanent right of residence under Article 16 of the Citizens Directive 2004/38 (1)?

1

| 2. | If a period of imprisonment does not qualify as legal residence, is a person who has served a period of imprisonment permitted to aggregate periods of residence before and after his imprisonment for the purposes of calculating the period of 5 years needed to establish permanent right of residence under the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a period of imprisonment does not qualify as legal residence, is a person who has served a period of imprisonment permitted to aggregate periods of residence before and after his imprisonment for the purposes of calculating the period of 5 years needed to establish permanent right of residence under the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)

1

OJ L 158, p. 77

---
#### In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum for Bank Records of Joseph Neves MARCAL, III.

No. 59893.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1977.

In re: Joseph Neves Marcal, III, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial judge is correct.

SUMMERS and CALOGERO, JJ., are of the opinion the writ should be granted.

TATE, J.,

concurs.

While Article I, Section 5, La. Constitution requires probable cause for a search and seizure, a grand jury’s right to subpoena non-privileged testimony deemed relevant by it is not so limited.

DENNIS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
No. 00-6347.

#### Simpson *v.*Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Minden Bancorp,  Inc. (The "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, A. David Evans,  the
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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

                                     /s/ A. David Evans
                                     Name: A. David Evans
                                     Title:   President and Chief Executive
                                              Officer

Date: August 14, 2006

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       26
No. 46486.

#### Protests 987682-G, etc., of Geo. Borgfeldt Corp. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the manger sets and crib sets in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 45502. In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was sustained.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL