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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 636 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 636

     To amend title 10, United States Code, to restore the CHAMPUS 
  eligibility of certain members and former members of the uniformed 
    services, and their dependents, who are currently excluded from 
    benefits under CHAMPUS because of their entitlement to hospital 
                   insurance benefits under medicare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

Mr. Sundquist introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 10, United States Code, to restore the CHAMPUS 
  eligibility of certain members and former members of the uniformed 
    services, and their dependents, who are currently excluded from 
    benefits under CHAMPUS because of their entitlement to hospital 
                   insurance benefits under medicare.

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

SECTION 1. COMPLETE RESTORATION OF COVERAGE UNDER CHAMPUS IN THE CASE 
              OF RETIRED MEMBERS AND CERTAIN DEPENDENTS WHO ARE 
              MEDICARE PARTICIPANTS.

    (a) Complete Restoration of Coverage.--Subsection (d) of section 
1086 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(d)(1) A benefit may not be paid under a plan covered by this 
section in the case of a person enrolled in any other insurance, 
medical service, or health plan or entitled to hospital insurance 
benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395c et seq.) to the extent that the benefit under the plan 
covered by this section is also a benefit under the other plan or 
medicare.
    ``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not apply in 
the case of a plan administered under title XIX of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Subsection (g) of such section is 
amended by striking ``Section 1079(j) of this title shall apply to a 
plan contracted for under this section, except that no person'' and 
inserting ``No person''.
    (2) Section 1713(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``section 1086(d)(1) of title 10 or''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to health care provided on and after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
PROMISSORY NOTE



  $50,000.00                    March 8, 1997              Salt Lake City, Utah

FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  Craig Heesch., an individual,  promises to pay to the order
of WASATCH PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00),
in legal and lawful money of the United States of America, with interest thereon
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum.

The principal and interest of this note is due and payable on May 8, 2001.

Maker  reserves the right to prepay this note in any amount at any time prior to
maturity without penalty.

This  note is a non  recourse  note.  The only  collateral  on this note will be
500,000  shares of  restricted  common  stock  which will be held by the company
until this note plus accrued interest is paid in full.

Failure to pay any part of the  principal  or interest of this note when due, or
failure  to  carry  out  any of the  terms,  covenants,  or  conditions  of said
Agreement, shall authorize the holder of this note to declare as immediately due
and  payable the then  unpaid  principal,  and to dispose of the stock to settle
this debt.

If executed via telefax this document will be construed as an original  document
as an Original  signature  with hardcopy to be delivered  via overnight  courier
same day of receipt.


                                             BY:   /s/ CRAIG HEESCH
                                                ---------------------
                                                    CRAIG HEESCH

                                       16
#### Thomas DONALDSON, Appellant, v. Karl SCHULTZ, Jr., Appellee.

No. 70-885.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 598 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 598

    To amend the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 to 
 establish a presumption of eligibility for disability benefits in the 
 case of certain coal miners who filed claims under part C of such Act 
                between July 1, 1973, and April 1, 1980.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

Mr. Kanjorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 to 
 establish a presumption of eligibility for disability benefits in the 
 case of certain coal miners who filed claims under part C of such Act 
                between July 1, 1973, and April 1, 1980.

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

SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS UNDER THE 
              BLACK LUNG BENEFITS PROGRAM.

    Section 422 of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 
(30 U.S.C. 932) is amended by adding after subsection (l) the following 
new subsection:
    ``(m)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation, in the 
case of any claim filed under this part between July 1, 1973, and April 
1, 1980, with respect to a miner who has engaged in coal mining 
employment for at least 10 years, such miner shall be presumed to be 
totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, or to have been totally 
disabled due to pneumoconiosis, or the death of such miner shall be 
presumed to be due to pneumoconiosis, arising out of that employment, 
if any of the following medical requirements is met:
            ``(A) A single positive chest roentgenogram (X-ray), 
        biopsy, or autopsy indicates the existence of pneumoconiosis.
            ``(B) A single set of positive ventiliatory studies 
        indicates the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary 
        disease.
            ``(C) A single set of positive blood gas studies indicates 
        the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from 
        the lungs to the blood.
            ``(D) Other medical evidence, including the documented 
        opinion of a physician exercising reasonable medical judgment, 
        indicates the presence of totally disabling respiratory 
        impairment.
    ``(2) The presentation of evidence which meets any of the 
requirements under subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (1) shall 
be sufficient to invoke the presumption under such paragraph.
    ``(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require 
proof of any such medical requirement by a preponderance of the 
evidence or by any higher evidentiary standard.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Irene SLATE and Donald Slate, Appellants, v. Ralph BROWN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1972.

Milton E. Grusmark and David B. Javits, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Arthur Lee Willner, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs in the trial court appeal a summary final judgment for the defendants upon a complaint alleging fraud in the sale of stock in a corporation to be formed. The judgment is supported by the depositions of the plaintiffs where it appears that the corporation was formed and one of the appellants participated as an officer until losses were encountered. The testimony of the plaintiffs fails to support the allegations of their complaint. In *65addition, it affirmatively appears that there is no further evidence of the alleged fraud available for trial. See Lane v. Cohen, Fla. App.1967, 201 So.2d 804 for the rule that a summary judgment will' be affirmed where the depositions demonstrate that the appellant is completely without proofs to sustain his complaint.

Affirmed.
262 La. 309

#### NEW ORLEANS SILVERSMITHS, INC. v. Algert J. TOUPS.

No. 52562.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 22, 1972.

In re: New Orleans Silversmiths, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 261 So.2d 252.

Writ refused. The result is correct.

TATE, J.,

concurs. Technically, as the court of appeal dissent correctly points out, Civil Code Article 3158 and its 1952 amendment only affect a pledge and do not regulate the extent of a mortgage and the necessity for a principal debt secured thereby, insofar as third persons are concerned. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the jurisprudential development of the “collateral mortgage” security device, based upon the pledge of the collateral mortgage note, I think the court of appeal majority ascribed an appropriate legislative intent to the 1952 amendment of Article 3158.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Statement of Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson

Regarding the Commission’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Request to Congress 

March 28, 2022 

We are proud of the substantial benefits that the Federal Trade Commission delivers to 

America’s consumers. Thanks to the tireless efforts of dedicated FTC staff, the Commission

has long delivered an excellent return on investment for American taxpayers, effectively

deploying both the legal and financial resources vested in us by Congress. 

In recent fiscal cycles, Congress has provided the Commission with substantial additional 

resources—an increase of more than 20% in the agency’s budget in just the last three years.

President Biden proposes to increase the FTC’s budget by an additional 30% in just one 

year. But under current leadership, the enforcement productivity of the agency has declined 

substantially,1despite the congressional largesse already granted to us. We believe that

unfounded policy and implementation choices, not any change in the commitment of our diligent 

staff, are driving those results. 

The accompanying Congressional Budget Justification provides no roadmap for effectively 

deploying the dramatic increase in resources it purports to justify, and no assurance that the 

agency will abandon its present course of deviating from sound legal precedent and the 

Commission’s established jurisdiction.

For these reasons, we cannot embrace this budget request. 

1 See, e.g., Remarks of Christine S. Wilson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, at the Mercatus Antitrust 

Forum: One Year of Biden Antitrust, Governing is Hard: Antitrust Enforcement in the First Year of the Biden 

Administration (Jan. 26, 2022), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1600479/governing_is_hard_antitrust_enforcement_i

n_the_first_year_of_the_biden_administration_0.pdf.
#### Ray J. RIGOT, Appellant, v. William C. HOLBEIN and Edward Ray Holbein, Appellees.

No. 69-118.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1971.

*476Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellant.

Dawes & Lummus, and Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on March 31, 1970, 233 So.2d 458 affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed February 24, 1971, 245 So.2d 57 and mandate dated March 12, 1971, now lodged in this court, reversed in part and affirmed in part this court’s judgment and remand the cause with directions to reinstate the judgment of the circuit court;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on April 16, 1970 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed March 31, 1970, insofar as it reversed the judgment of the trial court awarding punitive damages to the plaintiffs is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court and the judgment of the circuit court appealed from in this cause is affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the trial court (Rule 3.16(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
#### NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Rebecca E. COOK, Appellee.

No. 73-1032.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 19, 1974.

Shutts & Bowen and Karl V. Hart, Miami, for appellant.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Pro-enza & Richman, Miami, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Coastal States Life Insurance Company v. Raphael, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 274 and Kennedy v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, Fla.App.1972, 264 So.2d 32.
#### Sud-Rheinische Gesellschaft, M. B. H. *v.*Rosedale Foundry & Machine Company, Appellant.

*188Argued April 25, 1934.

Before Trexler,, P. J., Keller, Cunning* ham, Baldbige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Max U. Applebaum,*and with him O. *8. Richardson,*for appellant.

*Edward G. Bothwell*of *Morris, Walker & Bothwell,*for appellee.

May 7, 1934:

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff by the county court on the pleadings. The uncontradicted facts show that on June 10, 1931 C. *W.*Jones, vice-president and superintendent of the foundry department of defendant company, signed an order to the plaintiff for 1% gross of safety locks at a price of $3.80 per lb. delivered. On June 29, 1931, plaintiff notified defendant by letter of its confirmation of the order. The plaintiff alleged that on Sep*189tember 23, 1931, the merchandise as ordered was delivered. Defendant does not question the receipt of the goods; however, he denies delivery on the date specified but does not state when they were received. No objection was made by the defendant until October 7, 1931, when it cabled plaintiff “Very large mistake. Cannot locate your agent. Notify him to write or see us immediately.”

Appellant’s first objection to the court action is that the statement of claim is verified by plaintiff’s attorney. 'The proper manner and time of attacking any imperfection of or irregularity in the statement was by a motion to strike it off before filing an affidavit of defense on the merits; Boyle v. Breakwater Company, 239 Pa. 577. Appellant contended further that C. W. Jones was not the agent of the defendant duly authorized to act on its behalf. It was the duty of the defendant, if it intended to disavow the vice-president’s authority or repudiate its liability for the merchandise, to give notice to the plaintiff within a reasonable time and not wait until more than three months after confirmation ¡of the order. Its failure so to act promptly raises a presumption of assent of authority and the acceptance of the merchandise. It is now too late for the defendants to avail themselves of that defense.

Judgment is affirmed.
#### Pasco WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8218 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for increased 

Medicare payment for certain rural providers of ambulance services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020 

Mr. GIANFORTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for increased Medicare payment for certain rural providers of ambulance 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 ‘‘Rural Ambulance Re5 imbursement Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8218 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN RURAL PRO2 VIDERS OF AMBULANCE SERVICES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (8) of section 1834(l) 

4 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)) is amend5 ed in the matter following subparagraph (B), by inserting 

6 ‘‘(or, in the case of mountainous terrain or in areas with 

7 only secondary roads available, a 15-mile drive)’’ after 

8 ‘‘within a 35-mile drive’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to ambulance serv11 ices furnished on or after January 1, 2021. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
AMURABI MEDINA

- CRUZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 936

- 1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Amurabi Medina

Cruz 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). Medina

- Cruz h a s not filed a resp onse. 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 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40083 Document: 00513762179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2016No. 16

- 40083

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdra w is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40083 Document: 00513762179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2016
EXHIBIT 10.7.3

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE


$165,000                                                    San Jose, California
                                                            May 7, 1999


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  the  undersigned,  Brian  Carlisle,  ("Employee"),
promises to pay to the order of ADEPT TECHNOLOGY, INC., (the "Corporation"),  at
its office at 150 Rose Orchard Way, San Jose,  California  95134,  the principal
sum of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($165,000),  with interest on the
unpaid  principal  amount  outstanding  from the date  hereof,  initially at the
current Federal short term rate, and thereafter during the term hereof, each May
7 at the  applicable  Federal  short term rate in effect on such date.  Interest
shall be payable  annually  commencing  May 7, 2000.  Any interest for a partial
month shall be prorated  based on the number of days in such month.  All accrued
and unpaid interest,  and all unpaid  principal,  shall be due and payable on or
before May 7, 2004. All money paid toward the satisfaction of this Note shall be
applied  first to the payment of interest as required  hereunder and then to the
retirement of principal.
         If an action is instituted for collection of the Note, the  undersigned
agrees to pay court costs and reasonable  attorneys' fees incurred by the holder
hereof.
         This note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.


                         /s/ Brian Carlisle
                         --------------------------------------------
                         Borrower, Brian Carlisle


                         /s/ Bruce Shimano
                         --------------------------------------------
                         Bruce Shimano
#### James Leslie CROZIER and Apopka Plant Co-op, a Florida cooperative association incorporated in Florida, Appellants, v. Newton Jack MATHEWS, II, and Katherine Mathews, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-535.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 22, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Parker Lee McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
401 East Jackson St., Suite 3400
                                 Tampa, FL 33602
                         813-222-8555 Fax: 813-222.8560





                CONSENT TO INCLUDE REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                       AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE IN
                  ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K AND TO INCORPORATE
                       REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE
                INTO FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENT BY REFERENCE
                          TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10K


We consent to the use in this 2003 Annual Report on Form 10K of P-Com, Inc., of
our report dated February 26, 2004, except for Note 17, as to which the date is
March 4, 2004, on the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of P-Com, Inc. and subsidiaries contained in this Annual Report.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-8, File No. 333-111511 of our report dated February 26, 2004, except
for Note 17, as to which the date is March 4, 2004, appearing in the 2003 Annual
Report on Form 10K, on the consolidated financial statements of P-Com, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2003 and to the use of our name,
and the statements with respect to us, under the heading "Experts" in the
Prospectus.


/s/ AIDMAN, PISER & COMPANY, P.A.

Tampa, Florida
March 30, 2004
#### Linda G. ATKINSON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA SUGAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. Joyce MURDOCK, Appellant, v. FLORIDA SUGAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. Norma BULGIN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA SUGAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. Roy WILLIAMS, a minor, by his next friend, Harold F. Edwards; Anita Estella Williams, a minor, by her next friend, Harold F. Edwards; Cecil Williams, a minor, by his next friend, Harold F. Edwards; Boris Williams, a minor, by his next friend, Harold F. Edwards, and Gary Williams, a minor, by his next friend, Harold F. Edwards, Appellants, v. FLORIDA SUGAR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 1412, 1413, 1423, 1424.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 2, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeals dismissed.
#### John J. GRIMM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. Q-150, Q-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and William C. Owen, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*254PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

State v. Williams, 230 So.2d 185 (4 Fla. App.1970).

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.