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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1964 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1964

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
   under part B of the medicare program of medical nutrition therapy 
     services of registered dietitians and nutrition professionals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 1996

 Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Hollings) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
   under part B of the medicare program of medical nutrition therapy 
     services of registered dietitians and nutrition professionals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF MEDICAL NUTRITION THERAPY SERVICES.

    (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (N); and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (O) the following new 
        subparagraph:
            ``(P) medical nutrition therapy services (as defined in 
        subsection (oo));''.
    (b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

                  ``Medical Nutrition Therapy Services

    ``(oo) The term `medical nutrition therapy services' means 
nutritional diagnostic, therapy, and counseling services which are 
furnished by or under the supervision of a registered dietitian or 
nutrition professional who is legally authorized to furnish such 
services under State law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by 
State law) of the State in which the services are furnished, as would 
otherwise be covered if furnished by a physician or as an incident to a 
physician's professional service.''.
    (c) Payment.--Section 1833(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395l(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and (P)'' and inserting ``(P)''; and
            (2) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the 
        following: ``, and (Q) with respect to medical nutrition 
        therapy services (as defined in section 1861(oo)), the amount 
        paid shall be 80 percent of the lesser of the actual charge for 
        the services or the amount determined by a fee schedule 
        established by the Secretary for the purposes of this 
        subparagraph;''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to services furnished 
on or after January 1, 1997.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2010 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) theinformation contained in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 3, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: November 12, 2010 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained bySMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 06-0422

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF

MELISSA CALHOON JONES

FILED

ORDEAUL 1 3 2021

Bowen Greenw000

Clerk of Supreme Cour

State of Montana

Melissa Calhoon Jones has petitioned the Court to waive the three-year test

requirement for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) for

purposes of Jones' application for admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana. By

rule, applicants for admission by motion must provide evidence of the requisite score on

an MPRE taken "within three years preceding the date of the application for admission."

Rule IV.A.3, Rules of Admission.

Jones passed the MPRE in 1996 when seeking admission to the practice of law in

California, where Jones was admitted. Jones has also been admitted to the practice of law

in the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland. The petition states Jones has

"practiced law as a labor and employment attorney for nearly 25 years, without any ethical

or disciplinary issues in any of the jurisdictions where she is licensed." Good cause

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Melissa Calhoon Jones to waive the

three-year test requirement for the MPRE for purposes of Jones' current application for

admission by motion to the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED.

The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and to the Administrator of

the Board of Bar Examiners at the State Bar of Montana.

DATED this W`• day ofJuly, 2021.

Chief Justi

07/13/2021

Case Number: PR 06-0422
I am writing to request an extension of Exemption No. **----10603** issued to **ALIN**

**STEGLINSKI** from certain requirements of § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption allowed **ALIN STEGLINSKI** to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA - approved child restraint system (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft. In addition, any air carrier operating unde r part 121 while **ALIN STEGLINSKI** was aboard its aircraft was also granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow **ALIN STEGLINSKI** to use an FAA - approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft. My **SON** is currently **22** year’s old, weighs **130** pounds, and is **5ft 3in** tall. My **SON'S** physical condition is as follows **CEREBRAL PALSY** . As a result of **HIS** physical condition, **HE** continues to need the support and security provided by an FAA- approved CRS, but because of **HIS** weight is incapable of comp liance with the regulation. I am also submitting the following contact information : **ALIN STEGLINSKI ALIN0STEGLINSKI@GMAIL.COM 19 N ASHLAND AVE**  **PALATINE IL 60074 -**  **5401,** The original exemption allowed **ALIN STEGLINSKI** to occupy an FAA- approved CRS (CARES, man ufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though **HE** exceeded the manufacturer’s weight limits. This ensured a high level of safety for **ALIN STEGLINSKI**  and a high level of safety for the other passengers and crew on the airplane. In fact, in **ALIN STEGLINSKI** ’s case, safety is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA- approved CRS provides during the entire flight. Enhancing safety for **ALIN STEGLINSKI** is in the public interest. In addition, the public interest is also served by the fact that the use of this FAA- approved CRSallows **HIM** to use commercial air transportation. Wi thout the support and

security of the FAA- approved CRS, **HEE** would be unable to fly commercially. Since the original exemption was issued, there has been no change in the condi tions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. If it is necessary to put a summary in the Federal Register, I submit the following: This is a request for an extension of an exemption from F AR 121.311 (b) to the extent required for an individual to use an FAA -Approved Child Restraint System (CRS) on an aircraft, even though the individual exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. Due to physical challenges, without the support and security of th is FAA- approved CRS, this individual would be unable to fly. W e request that this individual be allowed to occupy an FAA - approved CRS (CARES, manufactured by AmSafe, Inc.), even though the individual exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 pounds. I n this case, the safety of this individual is greatly enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA- approved CRS will provide for this individual during the flight. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6163

JOHN THOMAS RILEY,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00565-JAG)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Thomas Riley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Thomas Riley, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Riley v. Wilson, No. 3:13-cv-00565-JAG 

(E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
October 15, 2014 AETOS 

VIA FDMS G R O U P 

The Honorable Michael P. Huerta 

Administrator 

Office of the Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Supplement to Aetos Petition for Exemption — Docket No. FAA-2014-0629 

Dear Administrator Huerta: 

Aetos Group Inc. (AGI) submits this supplement to its Petition for Exemption in the 

above-referenced docket. In its Petition, AGI requested an exemption from aspects of 14 C.F.R. 

§ 61.133(a)(1)(ii), Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations, while noting that "AGI will 

require all of its UAS operators to hold a commercial pilot certificate." 

In light of recent FAA Grants of Exemption and Public Guidance, l AGI modifies its 

Petition so as to delete the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.133(a)(1)(ii) and instead 

note that "AGI will require all of its UAS Pilots in Command (PIC) to hold a private pilot 

certificate and a third class medical certificate." 

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact me via email at 

bdonberg@aetosgroup.com if you have any questions or concerns. 

Best regards, 

w~~ 

William Donberg 

President 

Aetos Group Inc. 

cc: Gerry Murphy 

1 See, e.g., In the Matter of the Petition of Astreaus Aerial, Grant of Exemption No. 11062 (Sep. 2S, 

2014), Docket No. FAA-2014-0352; see also FAA, Supplemental Guidance on the Submission of Petitions under 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Sep. 25, 2014).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 18,133
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           7,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                            14,335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       45,147
<PP&E>                                                  7,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                          3,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         72,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   5,659
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                   10
<OTHER-SE>                                             66,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           72,444
<SALES>                                                59,619
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       59,619
<CGS>                                                  35,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          24,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       12,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (14,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (4,862)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (9,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (9,450)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (1.00)
        


</TABLE>
#### Arthur KITCHEN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 12, 1956.

C. F. See, Jr., Louisa, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Ass’t Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

. Motion for an appeal from the Lawrence Circuit Court, Hon. Eldred E, .Adams, Judge, by Arthur Kitchen from a judgment convicting him of transporting intoxicating alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in local option territory and fixing his punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement for 60 days in jail.

A consideration of the record and the authorities cited in briefs discloses no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights, therefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### John Louis SPIKES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37766.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1965.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally and Bohn Phillips, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDONALD, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of knowingly, intentionally, and with lascivious intent exposing his private parts and genital organs tO' a female person under 16 years of age. The punishment assessed by the jury was 15 years confinement in the state penitentiary.

The 13 year old complaining witness testified that about a block from her house, while she was walking to the store, she saw the appellant seated in his automobile with the door open. As she approached, appellant beckoned to her and exhibited to her his exposed private parts, which he was playing with. When she returned from the store, the appellant parked his automobile partially on the sidewalk, close to her home; and again beckoned to her and exposed his private parts to her view. She went into her home, and her sister, age 14, and some younger children went out into the yard. The older sister testified that the appellant then exhibited his exposed private parts to her. The children’s parents soon summoned police officers who were on a street nearby, and the appellant was arrested a short distance from the place where the offense occurred.

*802We find the evidence sufficient to süstain the jury’s verdict. Appellant’s counsel has not favored us with a brief.

There are no formal bills of exception brought forward with the record. The only informal bill contained in the record is an objection to the action of the Court in oven-ruling appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict because of his contention that the evidence is insufficient. We find no error in the ruling of the trial court on appellant’s motion.

No exceptions nor objections were lev-elled at the court’s charge. No request was made for a special charge to the jury.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
":'<-___;:l--~ 

Morro Bay 

Stack: 4 78' MSL I 450' AGL 

Class G, SFC-1200'AGL 

Within CVG Mode C 30NM 

San Luis Co Regional (SBP) 

Class D, SFC-2700' MSL 

Radio: CT 124.0, CTAF 122.95 

6
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
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 Company.
  /s/  William D. GreenWilliam D. GreenChief Executive Officer of Accenture Ltd,
General Partner of Accenture SCA
(principal executive officer) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SCPIE Holdings Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 15, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert B. Tschudy  
|                      |  | Robert B. Tschudy      
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
S. 532

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. VENUE.

Paragraph (3) of section 1391(a) of title 28, United States

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the defendants are’’ and inserting

‘‘any defendant is’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Order entered October 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01469-CV

CRESENCIO BASTIDA, Appellant

V.

RICHARD AZNARAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND RICHARD 

AZNARAN D/B/A THE HATTON RANCH, Appellees

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-02287-06

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s October 2, 2013 motion for an extension of time to 

file appellant’s reply brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that any reply brief 

be filed by October 18, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
VI

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 546

For the relief of Dan Aurel Suciu.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 14 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Dan Aurel Suciu.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

6 1101 et seq.), Dan Aurel Suciu shall be held and consid7 ered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States

8 for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment

9 of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

10 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

11 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Dan

12 Aurel Suciu as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State
2

•S 546 IS

1 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one number

2 during the current fiscal year the total number of immi3 grant visas available to natives of the country of the alien’s

4 birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
| (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 the Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           |   |                                         |   |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| April 17, 2015 |   | /s/ Geert Kersten                       |   |
|           |   | Geert Kersten, Chief Executive and Principal |   |
|           |   | Financial and Accounting Officer             |   |
|           |   |                                         |   |
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Rehabilitation and Community :

Providers Association, and :

Westmoreland County Blind :

Association, and Associated :

Production Services, Inc., and United :

Cerebral Palsy of Central :

Pennsylvania, Inc. and Scott Howard :

Schwartz by and through T heodore :

A. Schwartz, Co Guardian, and :

Ryan Brett by and through His :

Guardian Francis Brett, :

Petitioners :

:

v. : No. 543 M.D. 2019

:

Department of Human Services :

Office of Developmental Programs, :

Respondents :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, March 4, 2021

, upon consideration of P etitioner s ’

application for re consideration and R espondent’s answer in response thereto,

the application is denied.