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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1525 

To ensure that the personal and private information of Americans enrolling 

in Exchanges established under the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act is secured with proper privacy and data security safeguards. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARRASSO, 

Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. CHIESA, 

Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. MORAN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. WICKER, and Mrs. FISCHER) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To ensure that the personal and private information of Americans enrolling in Exchanges established under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is secured with 

proper privacy and data security safeguards. 

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 ‘‘Trust But Verify Act’’ 

5 or the ‘‘PIN Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1525 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION. 

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Amer3 ican Health Benefit Exchange shall not offer health insur4 ance coverage through the Exchange until the date on 

5 which the Comptroller General of the United States in 

6 consultation with the Department of Health and Human 

7 Services Office of the Inspector General submits to Con8 gress a certification that finds that the Department of 

9 Health and Human Services, and any related Federal 

10 agencies involved in the administration of such Exchanges, 

11 have implemented all appropriate actions necessary to 

12 safeguard the personal health and financial information 

13 of enrollees and to properly protect enrollees from fraud 

14 and abuse. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21. Subsidiaries of the Registrant

      Interchange Bank (formerly known as Interchange State Bank), and Clover
Leaf Mortgage Company, Inc., both of which are incorporated in New Jersey, are
wholly owned direct subsidiaries of the Registrant.

      Clover Leaf Investment Corporation, Clover Leaf Insurance Agency
Inc.(d/b/a Interchange Insurance Agency), Bridge View Investment Company and
Interchange Capital Company, L.L.C. are incorporated in New Jersey and are
wholly owned direct subsidiaries of Interchange Bank. Clover Leaf Management
Realty Corporation, which is also incorporated in New Jersey, is 99% owned by
Interchange Bank. Bridge View Investment Company has one wholly owned
subsidiary, Bridge View Delaware, Inc. ("BVDI").
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Designation of Regional Office Privacy Advisors

In accordance with Section 13403(a) of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act (Title XIII of Division A and Title IV of Division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5)), the Secretary is to designate an individual in each regional office of HHS to offer guidance and education to covered entities, business associates, and individuals on their rights and responsibilities related to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

On July 27, 2009, the Secretary authorized the Director of the Office for Civil Rights to carry out the designation required under the Act. Pursuant to that authorization, Robinsue Frohboese, the Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director for the Office for Civil Rights, designates the OCR Regional Managers in each of the HHS Regional Offices to serve as the Regional Office Privacy Advisors for their respective regions. The names, addresses, and contact information for each of the Regional Managers are listed on the OCR Contact Us webpage, together with a list of the States for which each Regional Manager has responsibility.

Content last reviewed February 23, 2017
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                           Video Display Corporation
                             Subsidiary Companies



Lexel Imaging Systems, Inc.             Aydin Displays, Inc.
1501 Newtown Pike                       700 Dresher Road
Lexington, Kentucky                     Horsham, Pennsylvania

Fox International Ltd., Inc.            Mengel Industries, Inc.
23600 Aurora Road                       3110 West Ridge Pike
Bedford Heights, Ohio                   Sanatoga, Pennsylvania

Southwest Vacuum Devices, Inc.          Video Display Europe B.V.
1868 Tucker Industrial Drive            Sky Park Schiphol
Tucker, Georgia                         Breguetlaan 15
                                        1438 BA Oude Meer
Video Display (Europe), Ltd.            Netherlands
Unit 5 Old Forge Trading Estate
Dudley Road, Stourbridge
West Midlands DY9 8EL
England

Video Electronics, S.A. de C.V.
Calle Zinc Sin No.
Garza Garcia N.L.
Mexico

Magna View, Inc.
1240 Profit Drive
Dallas, Texas

Z-Axis, Inc.
15 Eagle Street
Phelps, New York

Teltron Technologies, Inc.
2 Riga Lane
Birdsboro, PA
#### William Smith, Respondent, *vs.*The St. Louis, Kansas City and Northern, Railroad Company, Appellant.

1, *Justices' courts*— Default—Appeal—Motion *for new trial*— Dismissal *of judgment for costs.*— An appeal from a justice is properly dismissed, where appellant suffered default before the justice, and filed no motion to set the same aside. A further judgment in such case in the Circuit Court against the appellant and his sureties on the appeal bond for costs is a nullity so far as the surety is concerned ; but not such an error, as to reverse the judgment of dismissal.

*Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.*

*Chandler 8?*Sherman, for Appellant.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought before a justice of the peace, for killing cattle belonging to the plaintiff.

*339The defendant failed to appear before tbe justice, and a judgment by default was rendered, and made final, in favor of tbe plaintiff, and against tbe defendant.

Tbe defendant afterwards, without moving to set aside the default, took an appeal to the Common Pleas.

In the Common Pleas Court, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s sirit upon the alleged ground, that the statement of his case was not sufficient, and that the justice had no jurisdiction.

The plaintiff also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and in liis motion asked that the judgment might be affirmed.

These motions were heard together, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the suit was overruled, and the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal was sustained.

The court, in sustaining the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal, entered judgment that the appeal be dismissed, and the judgment of the justice be confirmed. There was no new judgment in the Common Pleas of affirmance, but simply a dismissal of the appeal as above, but the Common Pleas, without entering a new judgment of recovery, entered a judgment for costs against the defendant and its surety in the appeal bond.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was properly sustained. No appeal lies from judgment by default in a justice’s court, without first moving to set aside the default. As no motion was made in the justice’s court to set aside the default, the appeal was improperly allowed. The Common Pleas had no jurisdiction of the case, except to dismiss the appeal. (W. S., 847, § 2; Kinser vs. Shands, 52 Mo., 326.)

The entry of the judgment was substantially a mere entry of dismissal, and must be treated simply as a dismissal of the appeal, so far as these parties are concerned.

The farther judgment, against both the defendant and his surety in the appeal bond, for costs, was irregular and erroneous as to the surety. As the justice had no power to grant the appeal, the bond for the appeal was void, and no judgment could be rendered on it. But this judgment for costs, *340so far as the surety is concerned, may be treated as a nullity. The surety is not here, and does not complain.

It is not such an error as to reverse the judgment of dismissal of the appeal. ,

Judgment affirmed.

Judges Vories and Sherwood concur, Judges Napton and Wagner absent.
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2015 11 3085 2015 21 64222 2015 31 46473 2015 32 15526 2015 41 68 2015 42 36 2015 43 457 2015 51 48 2015 52 2685 2015 53 386 2015 54 632 2015 61 626 2015 62 836
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Henry Lee DAVIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54099.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1973.

In re: C. Murray Henderson, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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

SANDERS, C. J., SUMMERS and CULPEPPER, JJ., are of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
#### Louis S. BLANCO, Appellant, v. Yale MOSK, Appellee.

No. 76-1843.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

Hendricks & Hendricks, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Leff, Pesetsky & Zack and Elliott N. Zack, North Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540 was denied by the trial court. On this appeal, appellant asserts that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. Our review of the record convinces us that no abuse of discretion has been shown. All of the errors *1146alleged could have been urged upon an appeal from the final judgment. See *Butler v. Butler,*172 So.2d 899, 902 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SHARON HAMILTON,

Debtor,

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

SUZANNE CONRY,

Appellant,

v.

SHARON HAMILTON; et al.,

Appellees. No. 20

- 60053

BAP No. 20

- 1037

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Spraker, Taylor, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted January 19, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Suzanne Conry appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

JAN 27 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 60053

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motions for

reconsideration

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

novo BAP dec isions and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied

to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian)

,

564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err by denying Conry’s motion s for

reconsideration for lack of s tanding because Conry failed to establish that she was

personally aggrieved by the bankruptcy court’s order granting the other creditors’

motion for relief from the automatic stay. See Harkey v. Grobstein (In re Point

Ctr. Fin., Inc. ) , 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 2018) ( “[O]nly a person aggrieved,

that is, someone who is directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by a bankrupt cy

court’s order, has standing to appeal that order.” (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted) )

.

We do not consider the underlying bankruptcy court order granting the other

creditors’ motion for relief from the automatic stay because the notice of appeal

was untimely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1) (notice of appeal from a

bankruptcy court order mu st be filed within 14 days after the filing of the order);

Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick) , 13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The

provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional; the untimely filing of a

notice of appeal deprives the appella te court of jurisdiction to review the3 20

- 60053

bankruptcy court’s order.” (citations omitted) )

.

We do not consider ma tters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett

v. W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Guillermo SUERIRO, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41229.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
1400 Independence Avenue, SW.

Room 0709-S, STOP 0247

Washington, DC 20250-0247

Subject: International Maple Syrup Institute email on Maximum Brix Requirement For Maple 

Syrup of 68.9 Degrees and Where to Obtain Color Grading Kits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable 

Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division is posting the following supplementary 

information for the record.

The following email, from the International Maple Syrup Institute, dated July 22, 2014 and

provided at the request of USDA, answers technical questions contained in the comments 

received on the Federal Register Notice published May 7, 2014 (79 FR 26200). The 

supplementary information addresses the rationale for the maximum Brix requirement for maple 

syrup of 68.9 degrees and where to obtain color grading kits.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 36623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16162]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Evidence

AGENCY: Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence, Judicial Conference of 
the United States.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a 
meeting on October 19, 2018. The meeting will be open to public 
observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials 
will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at: http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-and-archives-rules-committees/agenda-books.

DATES: October 19, 2018.
    Time: 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, 2255 E Evans 
Avenue, Room 412, Denver, CO 80210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee 
Secretary, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf,
Rules Committee Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16162 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
Exhibit 99.1

                           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 Pak Mail Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P.
Evan Lasky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

/s/ P. Evan Lasky
-----------------------
P. Evan Lasky
Chief Executive Officer
March 18, 2003
#### Daniel J. O’CONNELL and Marie O’Connell, Appellants, v. Herbert E. JONES, Appellee.

No. 66-522.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 7, 1967.

Litman, Muchnick & Rosenfield, Hollywood, for appellants.

Hawkesworth & Kay, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Baker v. Hausman, Fla. 1953, 68 So.2d 572; Williams v. Frohock, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 221; Malcolm v. Patrick, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 188; Goodis v. Finkelstein, FlaApp.1965, 174 So.2d 600.
Exhibit 32.1 and 32.2

                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 Coates  International,  Ltd. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2006 (the  "Form
10-QSB"),  I,  George J.  Coates,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  and
Principal  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  as of the date hereof,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, the Company's Form
10-QSB fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Security  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained in the Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2006                  By: /s/ George J. Coates
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           George J. Coates
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           and Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 36944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory 
Council.
    Date: August 28, 2018.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 
9100, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Teleconference).
    Contact Person: Laura K. Moen, Ph.D., Director, Division of 
Extramural Research Activities, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 
7100, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0260, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0865676d6664486569616426666160266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5989a909b99b598949c99db9b9c9ddb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/nhlbac/index.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 25, 2018.
David D. Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-16293 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

                                   ITEM  21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


            The Company maintains the following wholly-owned subsidiary offices:



                      United Kingdom      Old Bridge House
                                          40 Church St.
                                          Staines, Middlesse
                                          TW184EP England



                      Austrailasia        Level 5, Suite 504
                                          1 Elizabeth Plaza, Educom House
                                          North Sydney,  2060 NSW
                                          Australia



                      Singapore/ASEAN     77 Science Park Drive
                                          CINTECH III #03-05
                                          Singapore 0511



                      South Africa        2nd fl, Block D, Edenburg Terraces
                                          348 Rivonia Blvd (corner 10th Ave.)
                                          Rivonia, South Africa



                      GPS Scandinavia     Olaf Helsets Veig
                                          P.O. Box 6518 Etterstad
                                          N-060
                                          Olso, Norway