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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4913 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

816 East Salisbury Parkway in Salisbury, Maryland, as the ‘‘Sgt. Maj. 

Wardell B. Turner Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2018 

Mr. HARRIS (for himself, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. BROWN

of Maryland, Mr. HOYER, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, and Mr. 

RASKIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 816 East Salisbury Parkway in Salisbury, 

Maryland, as the ‘‘Sgt. Maj. Wardell B. Turner Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SGT. MAJ. WARDELL B. TURNER POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 816 East Salisbury Parkway in 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4913 IH

1 Salisbury, Maryland, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Sgt. Maj. Wardell B. Turner Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Maj. Wardell 

7 B. Turner Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Sanchez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered June 23, 1988, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in denying his application to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing. The decision of whether to permit the withdrawal of a plea rests with the sound discretion of the court of first instance *(see, People v Dickerson,*163 AD2d 610; *People v Oliver,*163 AD2d 686; *People v Council,*162 AD2d 293). Although the County Court provided the defendant with ample time and opportunity to state his reasons for seeking to withdraw his plea *(see, e.g., People v Patrick,*163 AD2d 84; *People v Melendez,*135 AD2d 660), the defendant merely offered conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations to the effect that his counsel had coerced and misled him into accepting the plea agreement. Given the total absence of factual support for these claims, the defendant’s previous experience with the criminal justice system *(see, People v Dickerson, supra),*his voluntary and knowing guilty plea, and his prior expressions of satisfaction with counsel, we discern no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial of his application without a hearing *(see, e.g., People v McMahon,*163 AD2d 588; *People v Rogers,*163 AD2d 337; *People v Scott,*161 AD2d 677).

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s contention that he was sentenced without the benefit of an adequate presentence report. Our review of the presentence report referred to by the court reveals that it contained all of the relevant and necessary information to aid the court in the imposition of the bargained-for sentence *(see,*CPL 390.30 [l]-[3]). Moreover, inasmuch as the defendant expressly declined to speak with the Department of Probation official who attempted to interview him, he cannot now complain that the absence of an offender’s statement from the report rendered it unacceptable. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim that his sentencing should have been further delayed for the preparation of a more complete presentence report is without merit.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4654 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require the Secretary of Agriculture 

to use certain data in determining an actual or benchmark county yield, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2017 

Mr. CRAMER (for himself, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. EMMER, Mrs. NOEM, and Mr. 

PETERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to use certain data in determining 

an actual or benchmark county yield, 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. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURE RISK 

4 COVERAGE PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1117(g)(4) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 

6 (7 U.S.C. 9017(g)(4)) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(4) in the case of county coverage— 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4654 IH

1 ‘‘(A) effective beginning with actual yields 

2 for the 2017 crop year, assign an actual county 

3 yield for each planted acre for the crop year for 

4 the covered commodity— 

5 ‘‘(i) for a county for which county 

6 data collected by the Risk Management 

7 Agency is sufficient, as determined by the 

8 Secretary, to offer a county-wide insurance 

9 product using the actual average county 

10 yield determined by the Risk Management 

11 Agency; or 

12 ‘‘(ii) for a county not described in 

13 clause (i) using— 

14 ‘‘(I) other sources of yield infor15 mation (including consultation with 

16 the applicable State office of the 

17 Farm Service Agency); or 

18 ‘‘(II) the yield history of rep19 resentative farms in the State, region, 

20 or crop reporting district, as deter21 mined by the Secretary; 

22 ‘‘(B) assign a benchmark county yield for 

23 a crop year using the actual county yield as24 signed in the prior crop year under subpara25 graph (A); and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4654 IH

1 ‘‘(C) make payments, as applicable, to pro2 ducers using the payment rate of the county of 

3 the physical location of the base acres of a 

4 farm.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1489-E1490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     IN HONOR OF C. ELLEN CONNALLY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 12, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of C. Ellen 
Connally, a member of the Cuyahoga County Council serving the Ninth 
District.
  Councilwoman Connally graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree 
from Bowling Green State University, a master's degree and Juris 
Doctorate from Cleveland State University, and is a Ph.D. candidate at 
the University of Akron. She has served as a Visiting and Adjunct 
Professor at the University of Akron College of Law and is a former 
President of the Board of Trustees of Bowling Green State University.
  Before representing the Ninth District of Cuyahoga County, 
Councilwoman Connally was a law clerk in the Eighth District Court of 
Appeals in Ohio, a Magistrate in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas 
Court, Probate Division, and was subsequently elected to the Cleveland 
Municipal Court. She served the court as Judge for 24 years. She was 
the first female, African-American Democrat elected to the Bench in 
Ohio and the first to be elected without first being appointed. In 
addition to her position as Judge, Councilwoman Connally has also 
served as a Special Prosecutor for the City of Cleveland and Foreman of 
the Cuyahoga County General Jury.
  Councilwoman Connally was elected to the Cuyahoga County Council in 
2010. She is the current President of the Cuyahoga County Council. She 
shares her time representing the Ninth District with other various 
roles in her community, including serving as President of the Board of 
Trustees of the Breast Cancer Fund of Ohio and the Vice President of 
the Board of Community Action Against Addiction.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring C. Ellen 
Connally, President of the

[[Page E1490]]

Cuyahoga County Council, who is dedicated to serving the citizens of 
Cuyahoga County.

                          ____________________
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4788 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award 

grants and loan guarantees to hospitals to carry out projects for the 

purpose of reducing energy costs and increasing resilience to improve 

security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2018 

Mr. ENGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot program to award grants and loan guarantees to hospitals 

to carry out projects for the purpose of reducing energy 

costs and increasing resilience to improve security. 

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 ‘‘Hospital Energy Con5 servation Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4788 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENERGY CONSERVATION GRANT AND LOAN GUAR2 ANTEE PILOT PROGRAM. 

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Energy 

4 shall establish a pilot program to award grants and loan 

5 guarantees to hospitals to carry out energy conservation 

6 projects for the purpose of— 

7 (1) significantly improving the energy efficiency 

8 of such hospitals; and 

9 (2) encouraging onsite power generation and 

10 energy storage, capable of operating independent of 

11 the grid, and providing sufficient onsite emergency 

12 backup power for essential hospital functions. 

13 (b) NUMBER OF HOSPITALS.—The Secretary shall 

14 award grants and loan guarantees under the pilot program 

15 to no more than 6 hospitals during the period described 

16 in subsection (f). 

17 (c) APPLICATIONS.—A hospital seeking a grant or 

18 loan guarantee under the pilot program shall submit an 

19 application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 

20 and accompanied by such information as the Secretary 

21 may require. 

22 (d) CONSIDERATIONS.—In selecting a hospital to 

23 award a grant or loan guarantee under the pilot program, 

24 the Secretary shall give special consideration to applica25 tions from such hospitals that can demonstrate that they 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4788 IH

1 are able to commence an energy conservation project more 

2 promptly. 

3 (e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘‘hos4 pital’’ and ‘‘energy conservation project’’ have the mean5 ings given such terms in section 391 of the Energy Policy 

6 and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6371). 

7 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated for carrying out this sec9 tion such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2019 

10 and 2020, to be derived from funds otherwise authorized 

11 to be appropriated for related purposes. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 8, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132385 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, DOUGLAS D. JONES, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132385 

 COA: 268929 

Wexford CC: 05-018785-NI 

KATHLEEN P. OLSON and TODD R. OLSON,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals 

erred in reversing the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary 

disposition, in light of Kreiner v Fischer and Straub v Collette, 471 Mich 109 (2004). 

The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they 

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. 

d0605 

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. 

June 8, 2007 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,199
<SECURITIES>                                        92
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,525
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,627
<PP&E>                                          15,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           114
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,991
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,905
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,970
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (635)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
**Custom er Service Hotline: 1**  **- 800**  **- 438**  **- 2474**  **UNITED STA**

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A**  **GENCY**

**REGION III 1650 A**  **rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103**  **- 2029**  April 23, 2010 Ms. Joy ce E. Epps , Director Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Prot ection Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17105
- 2063 Dear M s . Epps : On April 14 , 2010 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Pennsy lvania State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( PA DEP ) . This SI P revision pertains to the attainment demonstration f or the 1997 fine particulate ( PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia
- Wilmington, PA
- NJ - DE PM 2.5 nonattainment area
. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, an d is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Rose Quinto , Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814
- 2 182 . She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ David L . Arnold , Acting Director Air Protection Divi sion

cc: Arlene Shulman, PADEP
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 32


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Tiao Tsan Lai and Hsin Nan Lin hereby jointly certify as
follows:

         (a)      They are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
                  Officer, respectively, of City Network, Inc. (the "Company");

         (b)      To the best of their knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report
                  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2003 (the
                  "Report") complies in all material respects with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
                  of 1934, as amended; and

         (c)      To the best of their knowledge, based upon a review of the
                  Report, the information contained in the Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company for the period
                  certified.

                              By:   /s/ Tiao Tsan Lai
                                    ---------------------------
                                        Tiao Tsan Lai
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        Date: October 20, 2003


                              By:   /s/ Hsin Nan Lin
                                    ---------------------------
                                        Hsin Nan Lin
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        Date: October 20, 2003




                                       20
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1627-1628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00272]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Bureau of the Fiscal Service


Notice of Rate To Be Used for Federal Debt Collection, and 
Discount and Rebate Evaluation

AGENCY: Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of rate to be used for Federal debt collection, and 
discount and rebate evaluation.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for computing and 
publishing the percentage rate that is used in assessing interest 
charges for outstanding debts owed to the Government (The Debt 
Collection Act of 1982, as amended). This rate is also used by agencies 
as a comparison point in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of a cash 
discount. In addition, this rate is used in determining when agencies 
should pay purchase card invoices when the card issuer offers a rebate. 
Notice is hereby given that the applicable rate for calendar year 2024 
is 4.00 percent.

DATES: January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of 
the Fiscal Service, Payment Management, E-Commerce Division (LC-RM 
349B), 3201 Pennsy Drive, Building E, Landover, MD 20785 (Telephone: 
202-874-9428).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rate reflects the current value of funds 
to the Treasury for use in connection with Federal Cash Management 
systems, and is based on investment rates set for purposes of Public 
Law 95-147, 91 Stat. 1227 (October 28, 1977), as calculated by the 
Department of the Treasury's Office of Debt Management. The annual 
Interest Rate Factors used in determining the Current Value of Funds 
Rate are based on weekly average Fed funds less 25 basis points for the 
12-month period ending every September 30, rounded to the nearest whole 
percentage, for applicability effective each January 1. Quarterly 
revisions are made if the annual average, on a moving basis, changes by 
2 percentage points. The rate for calendar year 2024 reflects

[[Page 1628]]

the average investment rates for the 12-month period that ended 
September 30, 2023.
    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3717.

Linda Claire Chero,
Assistant Commissioner, Disbursing & Debt Management and Chief 
Disbursing Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-00272 Filed 1-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AS-P
Order entered October 1, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00455-CV

KIMBERLEY PETTIGREW, Appellant

V.

MEGAN REEVES & BRIANA TROY, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-03642-2011

ORDER

The Court has before it the September 26, 2013 request for an extension of time from 

Claudia Webb, official court reporter for the Collin County Court at Law No. 4. We GRANT 

the request and ORDER Ms. Webb to file the reporter’s record within five days of the date of 

this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4952 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

conduct a study and submit a report on the effects 

of the inclusion of quality increases in the determination 

of blended benchmark amounts under part C of the 

Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4952 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Seniors Ac3 cess to Quality Benefits Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BLENDED BENCHMARK 

5 AMOUNT STUDY. 

6 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con7 gress that the inclusion of quality increases in the deter8 mination of blended benchmark amounts under section 

9 1853(n)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

10 23(n)(4)) undermines the goal of delivering high-quality 

11 care under the Medicare program under title XVIII of 

12 such Act. 

13 (b) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than one year 

14 after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 

15 of Health and Human Services, in consultation with rel16 evant stakeholders, shall conduct a study and submit to 

17 Congress a report on the effects of the inclusion of quality 

18 percentage increases under section 1853(n)(5) of such Act 

19 in the determination of blended benchmark amounts under 

20 section 1853(n)(4) of such Act. Such study and report 

21 shall include an analysis of the following: 

22 (1) The authority of the Secretary to remove 

23 such increases from the determination of such 

24 amounts. 

25 (2) The effects of including such increases in 

26 the determination of such amounts on Medicare Ad-
3 

•HR 4952 EH

1 vantage organizations (including the effects on any 

2 contracts entered into by such organizations). 

3 (3) The financial impact of including such in4 creases in the determination of such amounts by 

5 county. 

6 (4) The effects of including such increases in 

7 the determination of such amounts on individuals 

8 enrolled in a plan under part C of title XVIII of 

9 such Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4952 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human 

amounts under part C of the Medicare program. in the determination of blended benchmark on the effects of the inclusion of quality increases Services to conduct a study and submit a report