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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 188 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow for greater State 

flexibility with respect to excluding providers who are involved in abortions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2021 

Mr. CLOUD (for himself, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. MULLIN, Mr. 

GAETZ, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, 

Mr. WALTZ, Mr. BANKS, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. 

JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. 

BUDD, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. 

STEUBE, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. FULCHER, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. 

LATTA, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. GROTHMAN, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mrs. 

HINSON, and Mr. WRIGHT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to allow 

for greater State flexibility with respect to excluding 

providers who are involved in abortions. 

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 ‘‘Women’s Public 

5 Health and Safety Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 188 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASING STATE FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING 

2 PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS WHO PER3 FORM, OR PARTICIPATE IN THE PERFORM4 ANCE OF, ABORTIONS. 

5 Section 1902 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1396a) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(23), by striking ‘‘sub8 section (g)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (g), sub9 section (tt),’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(tt) RULES WITH RESPECT TO DETERMINATION OF

13 PARTICIPATION OF PROVIDERS WHO PERFORM, OR PAR14 TICIPATE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF, ABORTIONS.— 

15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

16 for purposes of this title, a State, at its option, may 

17 establish criteria with respect to the participation 

18 under the State plan (or a waiver of such plan) of 

19 an institution, an agency, an entity, or a person who 

20 performs, or participates in the performance of, 

21 abortions. 

22 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

23 apply to an abortion— 

24 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an 

25 act of rape or incest; or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 188 IH

1 ‘‘(B) in the case where a woman suffers 

2 from a physical disorder, physical injury, or 

3 physical illness that would, as certified by a 

4 physician, place the woman in danger of death 

5 unless an abortion is performed, including a 

6 life-endangering physical condition caused by or 

7 arising from the pregnancy itself. 

8 ‘‘(3) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub9 section, the terms ‘institution’, ‘agency’, or ‘entity’ 

10 mean the entire legal institution, agency, or entity, 

11 or any part thereof, including any institution, agen12 cy, or entity that controls, is controlled by, or is 

13 under common control with such institution, agency, 

14 or entity.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
DWS VARIABLE SERIES I

   SUPPLEMENT TO THE CURRENTLY EFFECTIVE PROSPECTUSES OF THE LISTED PORTFOLIO

                             ----------------------

                              DWS International VIP


The following information supplements "The Portfolio Managers" section of the
above-noted portfolio's prospectuses:

  Chris LaJaunie, CFA
  Director of Deutsche Asset Management and Portfolio Manager
  of the portfolio.
  o  Joined Deutsche Asset Management in 2006 as an analyst for
     International Equity and International Select Equity
     strategies: New York.
  o  Prior to that, nine years of experience as portfolio manager for Morgan
     Stanley Capital Strategy, and as equity analyst for Oaktree Capital
     Management, JP Morgan Securities and Scudder Kemper Investments.
  o  Joined the portfolio in 2008.
  o  BA, MA from Louisiana State University.








               Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference





March 3, 2008
VS1-36XX
254 La. 923

#### Kenneth Wayne MATTHEWS et al. v. ALL AMERICAN ASSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 50171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Kenneth Wayne Matthews et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 226 So.2d 181.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.

FOURNET, C. J., takes no part.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30454]



[[Page 62030]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-90-004 and RP97-99-005]


Algonquin LNG, Inc., Notice of Compliance Filing

November 14, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 12, 1997, Algonquin LNG, Inc. (ALNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Sub First Revised Sheet No. 83 to be effective November 
1, 1997.
    ALNG asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's Letter Order issued on October 30, 1997, in Docket Nos. 
RP97-90-002, 003 and RP97-99-003, 004 which required ALNG to reflect 
the proper version numbers for GISB standards incorporated by reference 
on Sheet No. 83.
    ALNG states that Sub First Revised Sheet No. 83 contains the 
modifications required by the October 30, 1997 letter order.
    ALNG states that copies of this filing were served on all affected 
parties.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30454 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40343

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO RUBIO-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1482-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco RubioPerez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rubio-Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40343 Document: 00513722193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 16-40343

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40343 Document: 00513722193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
EXHIBIT 23.1





Silberstein Ungar, PLLC CPAs and Business Advisors


Phone (248) 203-0080
 Fax (248) 281-0940
 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2175
 Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4586
 www.sucpas.com
  August 29, 2012
  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 Board of Directors
 CommonWealth Realty Partners, Inc.
 Newburyport, Massachusetts
 
 To Whom It May Concern:
 
 Silberstein Ungar, PLLC hereby consents to the use in the Form 10-K, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, filed by CommonWealth Realty Partners, Inc. of our report dated April 6, 2012, relating to the financial statements of CommonWealth Realty Partners, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, as of and for the years ending November 30, 2010 and 2009 and for the period from November 18, 2009 (inception) to November 30, 2010.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 /s/ Silberstein Ungar, PLLC
 
 Silberstein Ungar, PLLC
EXHIBIT 13.1  Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of IFM Investments Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (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.  Date: May 24, 2011  By:
/s/ Donald ZhangName:
Donald ZhangTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3738 

To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. VANCE, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. YOUNG, Ms. 

DUCKWORTH, Mr. BROWN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. SMITH, Mr. PETERS, Mr. FETTERMAN, Mr. SCHUMER, and 

Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, 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 ‘‘Great Lakes Restora5 tion Initiative Act of 2024’’ or the ‘‘GLRI Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3738 IS

1 SEC. 2. GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE REAU2 THORIZATION. 

3 Section 118(c)(7)(J)(i) of the Federal Water Pollu4 tion Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(7)(J)(i)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in subclause (V), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in subclause (VI), by striking the period at 

9 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

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

11 ‘‘(VII) $500,000,000 for each of 

12 fiscal years 2027 through 2031.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
| Date:  March 19, 2010 | /s/ Stephen E. Hare                                                       |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | Stephen E. Hare                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|                            | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

----
No. 9580.

#### Norfolk & Western Railway Co. *v.*Vallery.

(Decided October 2,-1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Pike County.

*565*Mr. S. L.:*Patterson-and *Messrs. Bannon & Ban-non,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. S. D. McLaughlin*and *Mr.*/. *A. Eylar,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

• Price, Crew, .'Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur. ¡
#### Irene F. JONES, Appellant, v. Michael S. KENNEDY, Appellee.

No. 73-1064.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. La Motte, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Prime Estates and Developments, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Vasileios MavrogiannisBy Vasileios MavrogiannisChief Financial OfficerNovember 2, 2011
# TY2012
IW17PF_371
IW17PF_372
IW17PF_373
IW17PF_374

Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the 

Redacted by the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury

Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury

Redacted by the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury
IW17PF_375
IW17PF_376
IW17PF_377
IW17PF_378
IW17PF_379
IW17PF_380
IW17PF_381
IW17PF_382
IW17PF_383
IW17PF_384
IW17PF_385
IW17PF_386
IW17PF_387
IW17PF_388
IW17PF_389
IW17PF_390
{b) is the monthly benefit that would have been paid to 

the Participant had he been age 65 at the time of 

his leaving covered Employment and he had then been 

eligible for the benefits set forth in Section 

3.2., and 

{c) is l/30th. 

3. a ~~uefit Amount of -ve~ste4 Pension at Early Retirement 

Aqaa - The Participant may elect to have his vested pension beqin 

at any age between 55 and 65. In such a case, the amount of his 

vested benefit will be the product of (a), {b) and (c) as shown 

below in this section. 

(a) is the number of years of total credited service 

not exceeding 30. 

(b) is the monthly benefit that would have been paid to 

the Participant, at the early retirement aqe chosen 

by him, according to the schedule of Early Service 

Retirement Pensions shown in Section 3.4. 

(c) is l/30th. 

Disability Retirement Pension 

3.9 Bliqibility - A Participant shall be eligible for a 

Disability Retirement Pension in lieu of an Early Service 

Retirement Pension, upon approval by the Trustees, when he has mat 

all of the following conditions: 

(a) He becomes totally and permanently disabled so as 

to be unable to engage in any substantial gainful 

- 15 -
activity by reason of a medically determinable 

physical or mental impair.=ent. 

(b) He has become qualified to receive disability 

benefits provided by the Federal Social Security 

Act. 

(c) such disability has con~inued for six consecutive 

m.onths. 

(d) He has met the conditions for an Early Service 

Retirement Pension as set forth in Section 3.3(a). 

3.10 Benefit Amount- The monthly Disability Retirement 

pension shall be equal to 80\ of the Normal Service Retirement 

Pension which such Participant would have received if he had 

continued to work until age 65. 

General Provisions 

3.11 Chanqe of Employer -A Participant shall carry his 

pension credits with him when he transfers from one participating 

Employer to another, if there is a lay-off and re-hirinq, provided 

the Participant is reemployed by a participatinq Employer. 

3 .12 Election of Pensions - If a Participant is eligible 

for more than one type of pension under this Plan, he shall be 

entitled-to elect the type of pension he wishes to receive. 

3.13 Minimum Hormal Retirement Pension Normal 

Retirement Pension shall in no event be less than the greatest 

Early Retirement Pension of Participan~ could have been eliqible 

for had he elected an Early Retirement. Upon a Participant 

- 16 -
Exhibit 10.14 


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”)
is made and entered into this 12th day of November, 2010 by and between Pinchas Althaus (“Executive”) and
Dominion Minerals Corp, a Delaware Corporation (“Corporation”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Corporation and Executive
did on December 1, 2007, enter into an Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) to provide additional financial security
and benefits to Executive, to encourage Executive to continue employment with Corporation and to enhance the motivation of Executive
to increase the productivity of Corporation; and


 


WHEREAS, Executive is currently employed
by Company as its Chief Executive Officer; and


 


WHEREAS, the Agreement entered into on
December 1, 2007 continues for a 4-year term.


 


NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the
foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained herein IT HAS BEEN AND IT HEREBY IS AGREED as follows:


 


		1.	The Agreement shall be automatically renewed on December 1, 2011 for a one-year term unless the Executive or Corporation terminate
the Agreement by notifying the other party in writing at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the term.



		2.	The Agreement shall be automatically renewed on December 1st annually for a one-year term until the Executive or
Corporation notifies the other party at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the one-year term in effect.



		3.	The annual rate of the base salary paid to the Executive for the periods automatically renewed shall be $350,000 per year.



		4.	This Amendment may be executed in counterpart by the parties hereto.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed this agreement as of the date above written.


 





	Dominion Minerals Corp.	 	Pinchas Althaus
	 	 	 
	/s/ Diego E. Roca	 	/s/ Pinchas Althaus
	Diego E. Roca	 	Executive
	Chief Financial Officer
#### Yamil SABA a/k/a “Polaco” a/k/a “Moro”, Appellant. v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2157.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Burns & Arnovitz and Jerold H. Reichler, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Ira N. Loewy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1039 CA 14-00100**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

CHERYL DOBINSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE O. LOCKHART AND MILAGROS LOCKHART, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

WALSH, ROBERTS & GRACE, BUFFALO (MARK P. DELLA POSTA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

DENNIS J. BISCHOF, LLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (DENNIS J. BISCHOF OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Diane Y. Devlin, J.), entered November 15, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she collided with a dog owned by defendants while riding her bicycle in front of defendants’ house. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge that the dog had a propensity to interfere with traffic ( see Myers v MacCrea , 61 AD3d 1385, 1386; see also Smith v Reilly , 17 NY3d 895, 896; Buicko v Neto , 112 AD3d 1046, 1046-1047). In opposition to the motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in that respect ( see Buicko , 112 AD3d at 1047; Myers , 61 AD3d at 1386; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562). We therefore reverse the order, grant defendants’ motion, and dismiss the amended complaint.

Entered: October 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1089 HANLEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant,
v. Donald C. Winter, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Appellee. Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in nos. 54315 and 56383, Administrative Judges Carol N. Park-Conroy and Peter D. Ting. ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of Hanley Industries, Inc.'s motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal,IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted. Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT


### JUN -3 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Date

cc: Steven E. Kellogg, Esq. Courtney E. Sheehan, Esq. s8 

## JUN -3 2009 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: r Tr,
JUN 03 2000 JS ilORMY CLERK