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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7725 

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to allow States 

to use incentive payments available under the child support enforcement 

program to improve parent-child relationships, increase child support 

collections, and improve outcomes for children by supporting parenting 

time agreements for noncustodial parents in uncontested agreements, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2020 

Ms. MOORE (for herself and Mr. ESTES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act 

to allow States to use incentive payments available under 

the child support enforcement program to improve parent-child relationships, increase child support collections, 

and improve outcomes for children by supporting parenting time agreements for noncustodial parents in 

uncontested agreements, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7725 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Adequate 

3 Resources to Enhance Needed Time with Sons and 

4 Daughters Act of 2020’’ or the ‘‘PARENTS Act of 2020’’. 

5 SEC. 2. EXPANDING PERMITTED USES OF INCENTIVE PAY6 MENTS. 

7 Section 458 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 658a) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (f)— 

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘; or’’ 

11 and inserting a semicolon; 

12 (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as 

13 paragraph (3); and 

14 (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the 

15 following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(2) to develop, implement, and evaluate proce17 dures for establishing a parenting time agreement 

18 when establishing an initial or modified child sup19 port order or a medical support order (including pro20 cedures for carrying out a parenting time agreement 

21 made prior to the establishment or modification of 

22 any such order); or’’; and 

23 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub24 section: 

25 ‘‘(g) DEFINITIONS OF PARENTING TIME AGREEMENT

26 AND NONCUSTODIAL PARENT.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7725 IH

1 ‘‘(1) PARENTING TIME AGREEMENT.—For pur2 poses of subsection (f)(2), the term ‘parenting time 

3 agreement’ means an agreement governing how 

4 much time a child spends with the child’s custodial 

5 parent and the child’s noncustodial parent that is 

6 mutually agreed to by the parents and is not con7 tested by either parent in any forum. 

8 ‘‘(2) NONCUSTODIAL PARENT.—For purposes 

9 of paragraph (1), the term ‘noncustodial parent’ 

10 means the parent of a child that the child does not 

11 live with for the majority of the child’s time.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
From: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US 

To: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Jeanhee Hong/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 04/14/2011 04:44 PM 

Subject: Fw: Haze Plan 

Note to file: 

 

A few minutes ago, I called Emily Schrepf of the National Parks Conservation Association to confirm her 

receipt of our April 8, 2011 letter denying her request to extend the comment period on our proposal, 

docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0131. I sent a copy of the letter earlier this afternoon via e-mail. 

 

Ms. Schrepf was not in. I left a message asking her to confirm receipt of our April 8, 2011 letter either by 

leaving a message on my work phone, or by an e-mail message. 

 

Jerry Wamsley 

 

-----Forwarded by Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US on 04/14/2011 04:38PM ----- 

To: Jerry Wamsley/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: Emily Schrepf <eschrepf@npca.org> 

Date: 04/14/2011 03:03PM 

Subject: Haze Plan 

Mr. Wamsley, 

 

Please advise whether you have granted an extension of the comment period for the proposed approval 

of California’s Haze Plan. 

 

Thank you, 

 

Emily 

 

Emily Schrepf 

 

Central Valley Program Manager 

National Parks Conservation Association 

 
1401 Fulton St ste 916 

Fresno, CA 93721 

Office 559.229.9343 

Cell 559.960.7056 

eschrepf@npca.org
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7679 

To amend the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act to index the borrowing authority limit of Commodity Credit Corporation for inflation, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2020 

Mr. CRAWFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act 

to index the borrowing authority limit of Commodity 

Credit Corporation for inflation, 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. INDEXING BORROWING AUTHORITY LIMIT OF 

4 COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FOR IN5 FLATION. 

6 Section 4(i) of the Commodity Credit Corporation 

7 Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b(i)) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘in the aggregate $30,000,000,000.’’ and inserting the 

9 following: ‘‘in the aggregate, for each fiscal year preceding 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7679 IH

1 fiscal year 2021, $30,000,000,000 and beginning with fis2 cal year 2021, $68,000,000,000. Beginning with fiscal 

3 year 2021, the amount referred to in the preceding sen4 tence shall be increased each fiscal year based on the per5 centage increase in the consumer price index for all urban 

6 consumers (all items; United States city average), over the 

7 preceding fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Order entered September 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00545-CR

PROMISE LASHAWN KELLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-56130-I

ORDER

The Court ORDERS court reporter Karren Jones to file, within TEN DAYS of the date 

of this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit nos. 157, 158, 159, 160, 160, 162, 

163, and 179, DVDs.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Karren Jones, court reporter, 

Auxiliary Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Hydron
Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2009, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the Registrant.  HYDRON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. /s/: Richard Banakus Richard Banakus Interim President, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer June 22, 2009
#### Pauline WINGATE, Appellant, v. Howard R. HAIRE, Appellee.

No. 73-389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; W. Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7715 

To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces who are outside 

of the State under orders to renew a permit to carry a concealed 

firearm through the mail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2020 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri (for himself, Mr. DAVID P. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 

GAETZ, Mr. ROUZER, Mrs. LESKO, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. 

WEBER of Texas, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. 

MARSHALL, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. 

BUDD, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. KELLER, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BERGMAN, 

Mr. MULLIN, and Mr. SPANO) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces 

who are outside of the State under orders to renew 

a permit to carry a concealed firearm through the mail, 

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 ‘‘U.S. Military Right 

5 to Carry Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7715 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONCEALED CARRY RENEWALS BY MAIL FOR MEM2 BERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State that receives funds under 

4 subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Con5 trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et 

6 seq.) shall have in place— 

7 (1) a law or policy that permits a member of 

8 the Armed Forces who is a resident of the State and 

9 who is outside of the State under orders to renew a 

10 permit to carry a concealed firearm through the 

11 mail; and 

12 (2) a law or policy that treats a member of the 

13 Armed Forces on active duty in the State as a resi14 dent of the State for purposes of issuing a permit 

15 to carry a concealed firearm in the State. 

16 (b) REDUCTION IN FUNDS.—Beginning in the first 

17 fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of this 

18 Act, the Attorney General shall, with respect to the 

19 amount that a State would otherwise receive under the 

20 grant program described in subsection (a)— 

21 (1) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the 

22 case of a State that fails to comply with the require23 ment under subsection (a)(1); and 

24 (2) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the 

25 case of a State that fails to comply with the require26 ment under subsection (a)(2). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7715 IH

1 (c) REALLOCATION.—The Attorney General shall re2 allocate amounts not awarded to a State pursuant to sub3 section (b) to States that comply with the requirement 

4 under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# - r-AA - 201ft -()C? 

# II AD ECONOMIC EVALVAnON Docket Number: Airplane Make/Model/Series: Number ofairplanes (U.S. Operators): 2002-NM-12-AD Boeing Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900; 747-400; 757; 767; and 777 1,882 The Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires: modifying the static inverter by relocating resistor Rl70 ofthe static inverter bridge assembly. Costs: Manufacturer warranty remedies are available forthe cost ofmodified replacement parts and labor associated with accomplishing the actions specified by this proposed AD. Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? YES ( )explain NO (X) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES ( )explain NO (X) Regulatory Flexibilitv Act: Will the AD have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities? YES () explain NO (X) Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: Itispossible that this AD could affect intrastate aviation inAlaska. Are regulatory distinctions appropriate to accommodate the extent to which Alaska isnot served by transportation modes other than aviation~ YES ( )explain NO (X) Project Engineer/Office Routing Symbol: Binh V. Tran/ANM-130S
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 PASSUR Aerospace, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James T. Barry, 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.

                              By: /s/ James T. Barry
                                  -----------------------------
                                  James T. Barry
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  (Principal Executive Officer)

                                  June 14, 2010
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00 199

- CR

JOHN HANKINS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1 AND JUDGMENT



### PERMANENT LY ABATING APPEAL

----------

We received a letter dated April 5, 2012 from the State and a letter dated

April 5, 2012 from Appellant’s counsel, both stating that A ppellant John Hankins

had died on March 28, 2012. The State’s letter included a copy of Hankins’s

obituary

, showing that he had died on Wednes day, March 28 , 201 2

. According

1 See Tex. R. App

. P. 47.1.2

to the parties’ letters, they agree that this appeal should be permanently abated.

See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2).

The death of an appellant during the pendency of an appeal deprives this

court of jurisdiction. Molitor v. State , 862 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993). Under these circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the permanent

abatement of the appeal. See T ex

. R. App

. P . 7.1( a)(2)

.

Accordingly, because n o decision of this court ha d been delivered prior to

our receipt of th e parties’ letters and because the parties are in agreement that

this appeal should be permanently abated, the court on its own motion

permanently abate s th e appeal

. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed

that th is appeal is permanently abated.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER

, GARDNER, and MEIER , JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 19 , 201 2
AFS-11-095-E Jan 20 2011 Exemption No. 3585R Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9379

Mr. Paul W. Railsback Director of Operations Air Transport Association of America, Inc. 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Railsback:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 3585, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 20, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA), for an extension of Exemption No. 3585, as amended. That exemption from §§ 121.613, 121.619(a), and 121.625 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows ATA-member airlines and other similarly situated part 121 operators to continue to dispatch airplanes under instrument flight rules when conditional language in a one-time increment of the weather forecast states that the weather at the destination, alternate airport, or both airports could be below the authorized

weather minimums when other time increments of the weather forecast state the weather

conditions will be at or above the authorized weather minimums.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.2

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ATA.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 3585, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 3585, as amended, to May 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
No. 10093.

#### Walcutt *v.*Slabaugh.

Decided March 24, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. J. T. Flolmes*and *Messrs. Rogers & Rogers,*for plaintiff in *error.*

*Mr. J. W. Snider*
      *400and *Mr. J. V. Lee,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur..
#### McArthur BELIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1971.

McArthur Belin, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Peach, for appellee.

OWEN, Judge.

On appeal from an order denying without evidentiary hearing motion to vacate judgment and sentence appellant raises two points, neither of which require reversal of the order.

Appellant’s first point is that the court erred in denying his motion without a hearing when the record clearly shows that at the time of trial he was un unmarried minor and his parents were not in court. The record affirmatively shows that almost eight weeks prior to appellant’s trial and conviction the statutorily required notice1 of the charge against the ap*646pellant was given by registered mail to his mother, who then lived in Lake City, South Carolina, and that she promptly received and receipted for such notice. This affirmative showing apparently distinguishes this case from that of Ziegler v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 477, wherein it was determined that such a finding could not be made upon a mere examination of the record in that case. However, appellant does not seriously contest the question of the parent receiving the notification of the charge of second degree murder which was pending against appellant, since he concedes in his brief that such notice was received. The thrust of his argument is that his parent or parents were not notified of the date and time of the trial, and thus when the trial commenced without his parent or parents being physically present, the trial court had a duty to postpone the trial until his parents could be present, subpoenaed by the court if necessary. This argument is clearly contrary to the holding of this court in Falagon v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 804, at 806, wherein we stated:

> “Where as here the parents of an unmarried minor receive notice of the offenses charged against such a minor, then that minor may be arraigned, tried, convicted or sentenced at any time after a reasonable period from the notice including second or successive proceedings on the same charges without any further notice to his parents.”

Appellant’s second point is that the court erred in the denial of his motion to vacate by failing to note from the record that appellant was not advised of his right to appeal following his original conviction. The motion to vacate did not contain any allegation to the effect that the trial court failed to advise appellant of his right to appeal from the original conviction, and thus this question is not properly before the court. Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 506. We take note of the fact that appellant now has pending in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus (Case No. 71-257) in which he alleges state action frustrated his right to appeal from his original conviction.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

1

. At that time tlie statute was Section 982.38, F.S. but has now been renumbered as F.S. Section 925.07, F.S.A.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Norman SPOONER v. Hayden J. DEES, Warden Dixon Correctional Institute, et al.

No. 61022.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Norman Spooner, applying the writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7534 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7534

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to direct the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on potential 
 disparities in incurred costs for rural and urban hospitals under the 
   inpatient prospective payment system and to authorize appropriate 
                          payment adjustments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2020

 Mr. Keller (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Hagedorn, Mr. 
 Crawford, and Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania) 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 direct the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on potential 
 disparities in incurred costs for rural and urban hospitals under the 
   inpatient prospective payment system and to authorize appropriate 
                          payment adjustments.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reviewing Urban and Rural 
Adjustments to Level Hospital Expenses and Lopsided Payments Act of 
2020'' or the ``RURAL HELP Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. STUDY ON INCURRED COSTS DISPARITIES UNDER IPPS; AUTHORIZATION 
              OF PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS.

    Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(d)(5)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
    ``(N)(i) Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this subparagraph, the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if, 
under the methodology for determining payments under paragraph (1)(A), 
and using both national and hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios, 
costs incurred by hospitals located in rural areas by diagnosis-related 
group exceed those costs incurred by hospitals located in urban areas.
    ``(ii) Insofar as the Secretary determines through the study 
conducted under clause (i) that costs incurred by hospitals located in 
rural areas exceed those costs incurred by hospitals located in urban 
areas, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate adjustment to 
payments under paragraph (1)(A) to reflect those higher costs for 
discharges occurring on or after October 1 of a year specified by the 
Secretary (but in no case later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this subparagraph).''.
                                 <all>
```