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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7888 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7888

  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
                    report on the REACH VET program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

 Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico (for herself, Mrs. Radewagen, and Mrs. 
Lee of Nevada) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
                    report on the REACH VET program.

    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 ``REACH VET reporting Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON REACH VET PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit 
to Congress a report on the REACH VET program.
    (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall include 
the following:
            (1) An assessment of the impact of the REACH VET program on 
        rates of suicide among veterans.
            (2) An assessment of how limits within the REACH VET 
        program, such as caps on the number of veterans who may be 
        flagged as high risk, are adjusted for differing rates of 
        suicide across the country.
            (3) A detailed explanation, with evidence, for why the 
        conditions included in the model used by the REACH VET program 
        were chosen, including an explanation as to why certain 
        conditions, such as bipolar disorder II, were not included even 
        though they show a similar rate of risk for suicide as other 
        conditions that were included.
            (4) An assessment of the feasibility of incorporating 
        certain economic data held by the Veterans Benefits 
        Administration into the model used by the REACH VET program, 
        including financial data and employment status, which research 
        indicates may have an impact on risk for suicide.
    (c) REACH VET Program Defined.--In this section, the term ``REACH 
VET program'' means the Recovery Engagement and Coordination for 
Health--Veterans Enhanced Treatment program of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27746-27747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12786]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 64

[WC Docket No. 10-90, 14-58, 07-135 and CC Docket No. 01-92; Report No. 
3091]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petitions for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in 
the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by James M. Gleason, on behalf 
of Clarity Telecom, LLC d/b/a Vast Broadband, Kevin Pyle, on behalf 
Hamilton County Telephone Co-op and Ronald T. Hinds, on behalf Grand 
River Mutual Telephone Corporation.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before June 29, 
2018. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before June 25, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition 
Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, at: (202) 418-7400; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a7b565f425b545e485f48147753545b485e7a5c5959145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a1b363f223b343e283f28741733343b283e1a3c3939743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3091, released June 5, 2018. The full text of the 
Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554.

[[Page 27747]]

It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not 
send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because 
no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and 
Certifications, Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local 
Exchange Carriers, Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation, 
Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration, FCC 18-29, 
published at 83 FR 18951, May 1, 2018, in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 
07-135 and CC Docket No. 01-92. This document is being published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), 
(g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12786 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Harold STARLING, Petitioner, v. Guy CLEVELAND and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43108.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
#### Alfred ADAMS and Doris Adams, his wife, Appellants, v. Martin ADAMS, Appellee.

No. 70-490.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I,
David J. Anderson, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sauer-Danfoss Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors:



|Date: March 10, 2008 |  | /s/DAVID J. ANDERSONDavid J. Anderson President and Chief Executive
Officer
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Lester B. WELCH, Jr., Petitioner, v. H. W. GIVENS COMPANY, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, and The Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 41179.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Robert M. DUPAS, Jr. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Travelers Insurance Co., and William O. Brown.

No. 60163.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 1977.

Whereas, Robert M. Dupas, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, the Parish of Orleans, 346 So.2d 322.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### GARD CLEANING COMPANY and Northwestern National Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Violet M. HARRIS et al., Respondents.

No. 40961.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 28, 1971.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs to review the order of the Industrial Relations Commission in said cause, it is ordered that said Petition be and the same is hereby denied.

The attorneys for respondent, Violet M. Harris, are awarded a fee in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350) for services in this Court.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 14, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 66 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-165, CP2018-236.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12747 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129254 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129254 COA: 250867 Wayne CC: 02-011661-01 KENNETH JAMES BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Clifford TURNER, Relator, v. The Honorable Alfonso SEPE, Judge, Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Criminal Division), Respondent.

No. 72-1211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
#### Constantinos STAMATINOS, Petitioner, v. NORTHEAST AIRLINES, INC., etc., and William H. Hutcheson, Respondents.

No. 73-174.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          30,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  471,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                   107,575
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               550,335
<PP&E>                                         226,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                 127,382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,605,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,315,746
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     23,590
<COMMON>                                        37,995
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,134,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,605,857
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,386,666
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,135,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               347,101
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,121,803)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,121,803)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,121,803)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
























</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (633)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,905
<PP&E>                                         122,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                (64,319)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,622
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,517
<SALES>                                        170,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          127,797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,187
<INCOME-TAX>                                       404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                783
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 20 , 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01201

- CR

DAVID DEWAYNE OWENS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Tria l Court Cause No. F12

- 51368

- H



### O RDER

The Court DENI ES as moot appellant’s September 19, 2013 motion to extend time to

file his brief. The brief was ordered filed on September 19, 2013.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
With a LetsGoTV® unit, direct satellite reception

is just $50.00 a month. For more information call 

1-800-LetsGoTv or visit LetsGoTV.com 

LATE NIGHT MOVIE: BODY HEAT

starring Kathleen Turner, William Hurt.

1982 (cc) 

1-3 TBS pm
With a LetsGoTV® unit, direct satellite reception

is just $50.00 a month. For more information call 

1-800-LetsGoTv or visit LetsGoTV.com 

WATERWORLD

starring Kevin Costner, Dennis

Hopper. 1989 (cc) pm

4-5 HBO
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00374-CR

ZACHARY AUGUSTE KITCHEN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1478907D)

July 15, 2019

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(en banc)

(p)

JUDGMENT ON EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

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

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

trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Bomrsble &wtslle HoDDM~~ 

### Diotriet

**Attorn.?** Bi( **spring,** **Tax*5**



### ?our **rrpuert for**  rull,~ ccnel4rr.4 bf tair aur8t 68 follower

pinion thfr auemtlon pntioaelJ drew2 ot by the t&e54 backto the oeaberr that have nca the law lr uncoostirrnt ba.rtr< IA,-on the $usstlOC

u pleame sdriss a~ about ttlr sttsr. ’ Opinion lo. O-4lW of thl8 4o$n rthent , a44raseod to you, dated April 1, 104L, hold Bwee Bill 744 **Of** the 47th Logllilaturo **UnaDnrtltutioMl. Thim**  8ot **war a**  **lDCS1 aot**  **pro viding**  **~SO.cO per**  month

### tr8~vding sx’p%~ese

**for** tb+ countf jUdg# end aounty otidnlOQerD. **one aaction**  **Of the**  **eat** l **?-** plied to Martlo County, T*xsD, a10rMJ.

L. ..^ -- . . . ...-.__.. ._ __ _- ______..-_ __ -_-. --..- ..-.. --....-.. ..-__ .---^..-_ _I _,.- ___^__._. ___.__.. _**pomorabla** Eartoll. ~aDozml4, PI6* t

Vtuler tbr muthorltlo8 sited and 8208 t&o r*88oa14 of oplnionr ROI. o-351 and O-4431 of thla drpnrtmult, rap188 ef uhlah mm l oslosod 

### herawith rar rour lntoraatlon, it 18 our oplalon thst tha asPbar el the romml88lonar8* eoart of Yartlo county u&o h&d rraolvrd amnatefrm Martin county under the rbmo drrarlbed unoonstltutloorl act rould be liti: for l r*fJnd 01í l u 8uah monoyr rrealrrd by thorn fr o0 the data thy

ware l rloed ti it8 uaoonrtltutionaft~ by rlther tha OountJ attorney, di8triat attsrm) or AttorW, oweral of Sexaa. Very **truly** your8
#### Samuel KIPNIS, Petitioner, v. William L. TAUB and Tom Ogburn, Respondents.

No. 73-1082.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 11, 1973.

Kovner, Mannheimer, Greenfield & Cutler and Steven J. Rose, Miami, for petitioner.

Talianoff & Bader, Miami Beach, for respondents.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We are presented with a petition for certiorari and a cross-petition for certiora-ri ; each petition seeks review of a portion of an order entered by the trial court in a proceeding in garnishment. The cross-petition for certiorari is denied and, in view of our custom of not writing opinions upon denial of petitions for certiorari, the cross-petition will not be discussed further. The petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner, Samuel Kipnis, is granted and a portion of the order hereafter delineated is quashed.

Petitioner Kipnis secured the issuance of a writ of garnishment against the Jefferson National Bank of Miami Beach garnishing the assets of respondent, William L. Taub. Respondent immediately filed a motion to dissolve garnishment and secured an early appointment for hearing thereon. At the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to dissolve garnishment but rendered the writ ineffective as to certain items. The order provided as follows:

> 

> “2. Effective September 5, 1973 the Garnishee, JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI BEACH, is authorized and directed to pay checks drawn on the garnished account of WILLIAM L. TAUB bearing a date on or prior to August 17, 1973, which may have been issued to the following named persons in the approximate amounts as set forth after their names.

> A. B. Cheylac $ 2,500.00 c/o Clair Jourdan

> Claire Jourdan 215.00

> Claire Jourdan 685.00

> Peter Smillle and/or Harriet Smith 100.00

> Ron Howie 200.00

> 663 — 5th Ave. Corp. 50.00

> So. Bell T & T 150.00

> New York Telephone Co. 75.00

> Hampshire House 570.00

> Howard Kurman 500.00

> New York Athletic Club 129.31

> Bank of America 650.00

> Master Charge 200.00

> “Any of the above checks and all other items bearing a date subsequent to August 17, 1973 shall be returned with directions to redeposit the same within 15 days.”

> *272

We know of no statute or rule of law which permits the type of exception here carved into the effectiveness of a writ of garnishment. The respondent Taub has likewise been unable to present us with any authority for this action of the trial court. The rule is that once a bank account has been garnished, the bank is obligated to retain funds of the depositor in obedience to the writ. See Fla.Stat. § 77.06(2), F.S.A. See also Fla.Stat. § 673.3-409, F.S.A. Cf. Poland v. Love, 164 F. 186 (8th Cir. 1908).

Accordingly, the court’s order dated the fourth day of September and appearing in case # 73-16201 of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, be and same is hereby quashed as to the second paragraph thereof and shall remain in full force and effect as to all other portions thereof.

It is so ordered.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

d0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138846

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138846 COA: 281048 Saginaw CC: 06-028176-FC ANTHONY BARNETT LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 17, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

DERRICK TT WALKER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 257 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 13th day of October, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.