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

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 359

Expressing the sense of Congress opposing the enactment of any proposal

for the establishment of a deductible for veterans receiving health care

from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 19, 2002

Mr. STRICKLAND submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress opposing the enactment

of any proposal for the establishment of a deductible

for veterans receiving health care from the Department

of Veterans Affairs.

Whereas the patriotism, devotion, and sacrifice of the Nation’s veterans have enabled the United States to be the

most free nation on Earth and its citizens to enjoy unequaled rights, privileges, and prosperity;

Whereas through their service the Nation’s veterans made extraordinary sacrifices and contributions and have earned

certain benefits in return;

Whereas the Congress needs to ensure that the traditional

philosophy of providing free benefits to veterans as repayment and recognition for the unusual rigors and personal
2

•HCON 359 IH

deprivation they underwent for the country is not abandoned;

Whereas despite the sacrifices made by veterans, the fiscal

year 2003 budget includes a proposal that veterans with

nonservice-connected disabilities who have incomes above

a certain threshold and are in the priority group for

health care referred to as ‘‘Priority Group 7’’ be subject

to an annual deductible for Department of Veterans Affairs health care in the amount of $1,500;

Whereas under that proposal, veterans would be assessed a

deductible for both inpatient and outpatient care at a

rate of 45 percent of the Department’s cost of providing

such care until they reach the deductible amount;

Whereas in addition to the proposed $1,500 deductible, veterans would continue to be required to pay the existing

pharmacy copayment of $7 for each 30-day prescription

and would continue to be subject to existing health care

copayments after reaching the $1,500 deductible;

Whereas although the fiscal year 2003 budget provides the

Department of Veterans Affairs with a $6,100,000,000

increase over the fiscal year 2002 budget, that increase

is largely attributable to increased collections in the annual deductible and prescription copayments; and

Whereas the budget proposal for a $1,500 Department of

Veterans Affairs health care deductible is clearly a move

to shift health care costs from the Government to veterans and would constitute an intolerable and unnecessary financial hardship to affected veterans: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a de-
3

•HCON 359 IH

1 ductible for veterans receiving health care from the De2 partment of Veterans Affairs should not be enacted.

Æ
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T FORT UN ATO D E P AZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74636 A ge nc yN o. A 072- 538- 381 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 6, 2012 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ortuna t o D e P a z , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew 

# FI LED AU G 28 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74636

for s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’ s f ac tual fi nd i ng s and re vi ew de no vo i t s l egal c o n c lu s io n s . Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 5 4 2 F .3 d7 3 8 , 7 4 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e d e n yth e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . D e P az chal l enges the agency’ s det erm i nat i on thathe abando ned h i s ori gi nal as ylum appl i cat i on . W e r ej ec tD e P az ’ s r equestt o rem and thi s c as e f or further p r o c e e d i n g s r e g a r d i n g ab a n d o n m e n t , b e c au s e th e a g e n c yr e v i e we dth e c l a i m s De P a z i nc l ude d i n hi s or i gi na l appl i c a t i on, tr e a t e d D e P a z ’ s s e c ond a s y l um ap p l i cat i o n as t i m el y, an dad j u d i cat edth e m eri t s o f th ese cl ai m s. D e P a z c o n te n d s th e I Je rr e din its n e x u s d e te rm in a tio n b e c au s e s h e f a ile dto co n sid er“g o v ern m en t co n sc rip ti o n ,” b u t D e P az d o es n o t ch allen g e th e I J’s a ddi t i ona l di s pos i t i ve f

i ndi ng tha tthe thr e a t s D e P a z e xpe r i e nc e d i n E l S a l va dor di d notr i s e t o the l e ve l of pe r s e c ut i on. Se e M

a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e dee m ed aba ndone d) . F urthe r , be c aus e D e P a z t e s t i f i e d he f e ar e d r e turni ng t o E l S a l va dor du e to ala c ko f

s e c u r ity , a n ddu e to g an g s a n dth ie v e s , th e a g e n c yd idn o t e rrin its a na l y s i s of

D e P a z ’ s f

e a rof f utur e pe r s e c ut i on. A c c or di ngl y , w e de nythe pe t i t i on a s to D e P a z ’s a s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l c la im s . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
steam_record - Fw: Re: RRI Request for ICR Extension 

 

Greetings, 

 

The email below was sent with responses to each of the extension requests received from RRI 

facilities. For your facility, RRI Shawville Station, the deadline to submit Version 2 of the 

completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010 . 

Sincerely,

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 08/02/2010 09:44AM ----- 

To: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com> 

From: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US 

Date: 07/26/2010 11:24AM 

Subject: Re: RRI Request for ICR Extension 

Greetings, 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Kohan, Murray W" <mkohan@rrienergy.com>

Date: 8/2/2010 9:52 AM

Subject: Fw: Re: RRI Request for ICR Extension

Attachments: RRI corporate Extension Request Letter.pdf

Page 1 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C56956FDO... 6/28/2011
EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent guidelines 

questionnaire for t he following RRI Energy Inc. facilities:

1. Avon Lake Plant - replied to Daniel A. Rogatto on July 20, 2010 

2. Brunot Island - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010 

3. Cheswick Power Plant - replied to Daniel Griffin on July 20, 2010 

4. Choctaw - replied to Howard Holder on July 20, 2010 

5. Conemaugh - replied to Richard Beer on July 19, 2010 

6. Coolwater - replied to Stephen Swift on July 22, 2010 

7. Elrama Power Plant - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010 

8. Hunterstown 

9. Indian River 

10. Keystone - replied to James Lafontaine on July 20, 2010 

11. Mandalay - replied to Thomas A. Di Ciolli on July 21, 2010 

12. New Castle Plant - replied to Joseph R. Dulovich on July 21, 2010 

13. Niles - replied to Rocco Tondo on July 20, 2010 

14. Portland - replied to William H. Wood on July 22, 2010 

15. Seward - replied to Gregory J. Mitchell on July 20, 2010 

16. Shawville 

17. Titus - replied to Jeffrey A. Marks on July 20, 2010

Plants that have not been replied individually are addressed in this response. The deadline for 

your plant to submit Version 1 or Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to 

October 15, 2010 . Please note that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and 

remains 120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are granted for Versions 3 or

4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for plants receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days 

after receipt.

 

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact 

the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

Page 2 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C56956FDO... 6/28/2011
 

"Smith, James R. (Randy)" ---06/25/2010 12:22:42 PM--- Alicea, please find attached RRI 

correspondence for EPA's consideration

From: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/25/2010 12:22 PM

Subject:RRI Request for ICR Extension

Page 3 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C56956FDO... 6/28/2011
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eric Gerratt, certifythat: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridger AerospaceGroup Holdings, Inc.; 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 
 b)
(Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos.33-8238/34-47986 and 33-8392/34-49313);

 
 c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 
 d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 
 5.
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 
 a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 
 b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Dated: March 20, 2023     By: 
*/s/ Eric Gerratt*
   Name: Eric Gerratt   Title:   Chief Financial Officer**
AMS Boneless Beef Supplier Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20221/,2/

Standard PlateCount3/ Total Coliforms4/ Generic E. coli5/

Supplier

# Lots Produced

(% of Total)

#Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

#Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

S1 8,111 (14.6) 1 0.01 0 0 0 0

S2 0 (0.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

S4 15,936 (28.7) 8 0.05 8 0.05 8 0.05

S5 4,739 (8.5) 1 0.02 0 0 0 0

S6 178 (0.3) 2 1.12 4 2.25 0 0

S10 5,350 (9.6) 6 0.11 44 0.82 14 0.26

S11 519 (0.9) 6 1.16 19 3.66 4 0.77

S12 309 (0.6) 0 0 0 0 0 0

S14 6,799 (12.3) 10 0.15 7 0.10 1 0.01

S21 8,156 (14.7) 0 0 6 0.07 4 0.05

S29 2,951 (5.3) 0 0 1 0.03 1 0.03

S43 218 (0.4) 1 0.46 0 0 0 0

S44 806 (2.6) 4 0.50 0 0 0 0

S47 1,379 (2.5) 1 0.07 1 0.07 1 0.07

Total 55,451 (100.0) 40 0.07 90 0.16 33 0.06

1/A full description of the boneless beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2021 to Sepember 30, 2022. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 100,000 CFU/g. 4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g. 5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 500 CFU/g.
Exhibit 35.1





Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.








This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 13, 2022 (the “Agreement”) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2022-2 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith.  The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.





The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer.  I further certify as follows:





1. I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from April 13, 2022 through December 31, 2022, and its performance under the Agreement.





2. To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.








AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.





By:/s/ Connie CoffeyDated:March 3, 2023Connie CoffeyExecutive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-840V

Filed: October 5, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

MICHAEL SCHIFFGENS, *

* Special Master Hamilton-Fieldman

Petitioner, *

v. * Attorneys’ Fees and Costs; Reasonable 

* Amount Requested to which Respondent 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Does Not Object.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

* 

Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

John R. Howie, Jr., Howie Law, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.

Darryl R. Wishard, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION1

On September 10, 2014, Michael Schiffgens (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 

et seq. (2006) (“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that the administration of a TetanusDiphtheria-Acellular Pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine on September 6, 2011 caused him to suffer from 

Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Petition (“Pet.”) at 1-9. On August 21, 2015, the undersigned filed a 

decision awarding compensation to Petitioner. Decision, ECF No. 33. 

On October 5, 2015, Petitioner filed a “Stipulation of Facts Concerning Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs”. Pursuant to their Stipulation, the parties have agreed to an award of $30,000.00 in

attorneys’ fees and costs. In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner’s counsel represents 

that Petitioner has not incurred any costs in pursuit of his claim. Stipulation, ECF No. 38. 

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems reasonable and 

appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned hereby awards the amount of $30,000.00, in the 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims’ 

website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each 

party has 14 days within which to file a motion for redaction “of any information furnished by that party 

(1) that is trade secret or commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that 

are medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 

of privacy.” In the absence of such motion, the entire decision will be available to the public. Id. 
2

form of a check made payable jointly to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, John R. Howie, 

Jr.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman 

Lisa D. Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment is expedited by the parties’ joint filing of 

notice renouncing the right to seek review.
Exhibit 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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 14, 2005



/s/    PATRICK
BRATTONPatrick BrattonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
Order entered November 10, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00462-CR

TREVOR RUSSELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F21-75838-T

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 8, 2022 motion to extend the time 

to file his tendered brief. A review of the tendered brief reveals that on page 31, in 

a passage quoting from an indictment in a prior case read into the record by the 

prosecution, appellant reveals the full name of a child victim.

This Court does not allow a party to file a brief that discloses the names of 

victims or witnesses who were children at the time of the offenses, or the names of 

any other children discussed or identified at trial. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b) 
–2–

(“Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, 

including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.”), id.

9.10(a)(3) (“Sensitive Data Defined. Sensitive data consists of . . . a birth date, a 

home address, and the name of any person who was a minor at the time the offense 

was committed.”). Accordingly, we STRIKE appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this

order, an amended brief that identifies all individuals who were children at the time 

of this or any other offense either generically (for example, “victim”) or by initials 

only, including when quoting relevant portions of the record or giving a statement 

of the case.

We DENY AS MOOT appellant’s motion to extend the time to file his 

tendered brief.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

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**

|   | (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                Partnership. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/                Freddie M. Kotek    |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Freddie                M. Kotek        |
|   | Title: | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  | June              15, 2005             |

----
Order entered December 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01473-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF FRANCES ANDERTON BUCHANAN, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17188

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to transfer to this cause the filing fee he paid in 

appellate cause number 05-19-1311-CV, which he has moved to dismiss. We DENY the 

motion.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE