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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1041 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 96-hour 

physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access hospital 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself and Ms. SEWELL of Alabama) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove 

the 96-hour physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access hospital 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 ‘‘Critical Access Hos5 pital Relief Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1041 IH

1 SEC. 2. REMOVING MEDICARE 96-HOUR PHYSICIAN CER2 TIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR INPATIENT 

3 CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL SERVICES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814(a) of the Social Se5 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (6), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (7), at the end of subpara9 graph (E), by striking ‘‘and’’ and inserting a period; 

10 and 

11 (3) by striking paragraph (8). 

12 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by sub13 section (a) shall apply with respect to items and services 

14 furnished on or after January 1, 2020. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 05-14-01148-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT DALLAS

Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. d/b/a R+L Carriers 

and Steven C. Gaston,

 Appellants,

v.

Bobbie Bush, 

 Appellee. 

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-16041-M

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

CORRECTED BRIEF OF APPELLEE

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellee, Bobbie Bush, respectfully files this Unopposed Motion for Leave 

to File Corrected Brief of Appellee, and shows as follows: 

1. Appellee timely filed her brief on March 25, 2015. 

2. Appellee requests leave to file a Corrected Brief of Appellee for the 

sole purpose of correcting a few typographical errors and record citations that were 

not finalized appropriately before the Brief of Appellee was filed. There are no 

substantive alterations in the corrected brief, and no additional arguments. 

ACCEPTED

05-14-01148-CV

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

4/9/2015 12:06:15 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 4/9/2015 12:06:15 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
1830.001/559131 2

3. Counsel for the Appellants have been contacted and do not oppose the 

filing of the corrected brief.

4. Appellee respectfully requests that the Court discard the original 

version of her Brief of Appellee and substitute the Corrected Brief of Appellee

tendered simultaneously with this motion.

PRAYER

Appellee respectfully requests that the Court grant her leave to file her

Corrected Brief of Appellee, discard the original Brief of Appellee, and substitute 

the Corrected Brief of Appellee tendered simultaneously with this motion to be 

filed for use in this appeal.

Respectfully submitted,

BECK REDDEN LLP

By: /s/ Russell S. Post

Russell S. Post

State Bar No. 00797258

rpost@beckredden.com

William R. Peterson

State Bar No. 24065901

wpeterson@beckredden.com

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500

Houston, TX 77010

(713) 951-3700

(713) 951-3720 (Fax)

Counsel for Appellee,

Bobbie Bush
1830.001/559131 3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I conferred with counsel for Appellants regarding this motion, 

and Appellants do not oppose the requested relief.

/s/ Russell S. Post

Russell S. Post

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 9, 2015, a true and correct copy of the above 

and foregoing motion was forwarded to all counsel of record for Appellants by the 

Electronic Service Provider, if registered, otherwise by email, as follows:

Bobbie L. Stratton

Jeffrey W. Hastings

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC

1301 McKinney, Suite 3700

Houston, TX 77010

bstratton@bakerdonelson.com

jhastings@bakerdonelson.com

Attorneys for Appellants

Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. d/b/a R+L Carriers and Steven Gaston

/s/ Russell S. Post

Russell S. Post
#### Samuel S. Lowe, Appellant, v. Amelia E. DeLaney, Appellee.

(Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc,

June 19, 1907.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe county: Toseph B. Wall, Judge.

H. H. Taylor and E. M. Semple, for appellant.

,W. Hunt Harris, for appellee.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellee against the appellant. There was decree for the complainant, and the defendant appeals. Dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1004 

To prohibit the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities 

with respect to Venezuela, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. CLARKE of New York, 

Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Ms. GABBARD, Mr. JONES, Ms. 

HAALAND, Mr. KHANNA, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEVIN of Michigan, 

Mr. TED LIEU of California, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Ms. MOORE, Mr. MOULTON, Ms. NORTON, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. OMAR, Mr. POCAN, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 prohibit the introduction of United States Armed Forces 

into hostilities with respect to Venezuela, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prohibiting Unauthor5 ized Military Action in Venezuela Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1004 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INTRODUCTION OF UNITED 

2 STATES ARMED FORCES INTO HOSTILITIES 

3 WITH RESPECT TO VENEZUELA. 

4 (a) FUNDING PROHIBITION.—None of the funds au5 thorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 

6 to the Department of Defense or to any other Federal de7 partment or agency may be used to introduce the Armed 

8 Forces of the United States into hostilities with respect 

9 to Venezuela, except pursuant to— 

10 (1) a declaration of war; 

11 (2) a specific statutory authorization described 

12 in subsection (b); or 

13 (3) a national emergency created by attack 

14 upon the United States, its territories or posses15 sions, or the Armed Forces. 

16 (b) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION DE17 SCRIBED.—A specific statutory authorization described in 

18 this subsection is an authorization that— 

19 (1) meets the requirements of the War Powers 

20 Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.); and 

21 (2) is enacted after the date of the enactment 

22 of this Act. 

23 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

24 may be construed to affect or alter the requirements of 

25 the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.) or 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1004 IH

1 any restrictions or reporting requirements contained in 

2 such Resolution. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Document

Exhibit 10.1

SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC.
2021 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

NOTICE OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD


Subject to the terms and conditions of this Notice of Restricted Stock Unit Award (this "Notice"), the Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement attached hereto (the "Award Agreement"), and the Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc. 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), the below individual (the "Participant") is hereby granted the below number of Restricted Stock Units (the "RSUs") by Sunlight Financial Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"). Unless otherwise specifically indicated, all terms used in this Notice have the meanings set forth in the Award Agreement or the Plan.


Identifying Information:


						
	Participant Name: _________________________
	Date of Grant: ________________________________

	E-mail Address: ___________________________
	Vesting Commencement Date: ___________________

		Number of RSUs: _____________________________





Vesting Schedule:
Subject to the Participant's Continuous Service and the terms of the Plan, this Notice and the Award Agreement, the RSUs will vest on the first anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date (the "Vesting Schedule").


[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]












Representations and Agreements of the Participant:
The Participant has reviewed this Notice, the Award Agreement and the Plan in their entirety, has had an opportunity to have them reviewed by his or her legal and tax advisers, and hereby represents that the Participant is relying solely on such advisors and not on any statements or representations of the Company or any of its agents or affiliates. The Participant represents to the Company that he or she is familiar with the terms of this Notice, the Award Agreement and the Plan, and hereby accepts the RSUs subject to all of their terms. The Participant hereby agrees that all questions of interpretation and administration relating to this Notice, the Award Agreement and the Plan will be resolved solely by the Administrator.


Electronic Signature:
This Notice may be executed by the Participant and the Company by means of electronic or digital signatures, which will have the same force and effect as manual signatures. The Participant agrees that clicking "I Accept" (or a tab of similar intent) in connection with or response to any electronic communication or other medium has the effect of affixing the Participant's electronic signature to this Notice. If required to be executed by electronic or digital signature, this Award of RSUs will be forfeited if the Participant does not so execute this Notice prior to the deadline set forth in the electronic transmission of this Notice and the Award Agreement.




									
	SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC.
		PARTICIPANT

	By: _______________________________________		Signature: ___________________

	Name: ____________________________________    
		Dated: ____________________

	Title: _____________________________________
		
	Dated: ____________________________________
		






*    *    *    *    *
# C_2004106EN.01006103.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/61

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 18 February 2004

in Case T-320/02: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v European Central Bank (1)

1

(Officials - Personnel file - Letter concerning the transmission of union information by electronic mail - Refusal to remove from applicants' personnel files)

(2004/C 106/122)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-320/02: Monika Esch-Leonhardt, Tillmann Frommhold and Emmanuel Larue, members of staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main, (Germany) and Karben (Germany) respectively, represented by B. Karthaus, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, G. Gruber and B. Wägenbaur) – application for annulment of the decision to include in the applicants' personnel files a letter concerning their use of the internal electronic mail system for transmitting union information and, secondly, a claim for damages – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 February 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-320/02 R. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief in Case T-320/02 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.02.

1

---
391 A.2d 688

#### Commonwealth v. Laguines, Appellant.

Submitted March 29, 1978.

John J. Poserina, Jr., for appellant; Nancy D. Wasser, Assistant District Attorney, and Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IASIS Healthcare LLC;
 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 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
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 have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal 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):
    /s/ David R. WhiteDavid R. WhiteChairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

DooketNo. FAA- 

# ;tel 0- 0'1

# 5't> ;>.010- NM-I~~-,AD Directorate Identifier: -AD
Estimated Costs: Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, Action I nroneller armliance) (ll.g.,lnspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs 

# I Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor 

### + U.S. forU.S. Fleet

access"testing, (@$8SIh parts) 

# I Registered andclose-un) our) Products 

### Install In-Line Fuse 13.7 Avg. T.I,O<.)'iO 

# .. 1I 

### $QgJ,Avg. :~;,(.'U0.f)fi 

### 275 $ 0

.. :','. 

# . '.

;'." $ O.DC 

## ': i),GLI $ 0



### ~U.(l(i 

# .... ;~ {).DO 

## , .' $ 0 S 

### r::.G(j ': 0/'0 

## I' , $ 0
The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compiiance for U.S, iJeet: !G8Is Not In i Table 

### I

--- 

## - -- 

## I Costs covered under walTanty $ 

# J

_ Executh'c Order 12&66: Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs tablethat was assumed or might not be obvious, Thuflddcan also be Msedto explain warran,y' costs):



### YES' 

# 0 NO

# [8J "'Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:
Is the AD significant? \~ 

### YES' 

# 0 NO

# [8J *Expl.111ation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the ADhave a significant economic impact on asubstantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either uYesorNeanswer._ YES 

# 0 NO 

# [8J Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affectintrastate aviation in Alaska. Isit appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated III Alaska where aviation might be the only mode 

# ortransportation? .' 

### YES' 

# 0 NO

# [8J "'Explanation:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOSHUA A. MONIGHAN,

 Petitioner

 v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 941 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 46 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 46

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2019

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 
                               15, 2019.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 
of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national 
emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15,

              

 2019, in Proclamation 9844 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is hereby terminated.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32**

 

**EXHIBIT 32 — SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that the annualreport on Form 10-K of Bemis Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2009 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Bemis Company, Inc.

 

 
| /s/  Henry J. Theisen            |   | /s/  Gene C. Wulf                    |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| Henry  J. Thiesen, President and |   | Gene  C. Wulf, Senior Vice President |
| Chief Executive Officer          |   | and Chief Financial Officer          |
| March 1, 2010               |   | March 1, 2010                   |

 

59

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 87

   Providing for the reappointment of Michael M. Lynton as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2020

Ms. Matsui (for herself, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and Mr. Shimkus) submitted 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for the reappointment of Michael M. Lynton as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Michael M. Lynton of California 
is filled by the reappointment of the incumbent. The reappointment is 
for a term of 6 years, beginning on the later of September 29, 2020, or 
the date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

d0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

138237(18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138237 

 COA: 287708 

Isabella CC: 2003-001335-FH 

KARL PAUL GASPER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

11, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
No. 01-14-00915-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

for the

First District of Texas

at Houston



No. 11-DCR-058577A

In the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas



EDWIN ALVAREZ

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

APPELLANT, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.5(b) and 38.6(d), moves 

for an extension of time within which to file its appellate brief. In support of its 

motion, appellant submits the following: 

1. Appellant was charged with sexual abuse of a child.

2. A jury convicted appellant of the charged offense and the jury sentenced 

him to 20 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice on October 17, 2014. 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00915-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/9/2015 10:27:39 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/9/2015 10:27:39 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
3. Notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 2014. 

4. Appellant’s brief was due on April 1, 2015.

5. Appellant seeks an extension to file his brief until July 1, 2015.

6. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the

requested extension:

a. Counsel has been working on the appellate briefs in Dorsey v. State,

No. 01-14-00685-CR., Hayes v. State, 04-14-00878-CR. and 04-14-

00879-CR., and Ross v. State, 01-14-00902-CR.

b. Counsel has filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme

Court in Masterson v. Stephens.

7. Appellant’s motion is not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may

be done.

WHEREFORE, appellant prays that this Court will grant the requested

extension.

 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/MANDY MILLER

 Attorney for appellant

 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201

 Katy, TX 77494

 SBN 24055561

 PHONE (832) 900-9884

 FAX (877) 904-6846

 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been delivered via

email to the following address:

Fort Bend County District Attorney’s Office

ATTN: John Harrity

 John.Harrity@fortbendcountytx.gov

 /s/MANDY MILLER

 Attorney for appellant

 2910 Commercial Center Blvd., Ste. 103-201

 Katy, TX 77494

 SBN 24055561

 PHONE (832) 900-9884

 FAX (877) 904-6846

 mandy@mandymillerlegal.com

3