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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 61 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 61

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of services provided by nursing school clinics under State medicaid 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of services provided by nursing school clinics under State medicaid 
                   programs, 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. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING SCHOOL 
              CLINICS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (25) as paragraph (26); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (24), the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(25) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
        subsection (t)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
        nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
        in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse practitioner 
        or clinical nurse specialist is under the supervision of, or 
        associated with, a physician or other health care provider; 
        and''.
    (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 of such 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(t) The term `nursing school clinic services' means services 
provided by a health care facility operated by an accredited school of 
nursing which provides primary care, long-term care, mental health 
counseling, home health counseling, home health care, or other health 
care services which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
nurse.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1902 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(10)(C)(iv), by striking ``through 
        (24)'' and inserting ``through (25)''; and
            (2) in subsection (j), by striking ``through (25)'' and 
        inserting ``through (26)''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall be 
effective with respect to payments under title XIX of the Social 
Security Act for calendar quarters commencing with the first calendar 
quarter beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Homer TRIMBLE, Petitioner, v. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, Respondent.

No. A-10383.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1965.

Robert Ziesenheim, El Paso, Hill D. Hudson, Pecos, John R. Lee, Kermit, for petitioner.

Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., Austin, Pat Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Court of Civil Appeals did not discuss petitioner’s complaint that he had not been afforded procedural due process of law in the proceeding leading to the revocation of his license.

We have carefully read the Statement of Facts, and have concluded that the evidence does not raise the issue. The testimony of petitioner and of his counsel is that petitioner did receive a letter from the secretary of respondent Board, advising petitioner of the charges against him and setting a date for a hearing on these charges. Petitioner testified that attached to this letter were the copies of the affidavits of the two witnesses on which the charges were based.

The evidence further shows that petitioner and his attorney appeared before respondent Board on the date set for a hearing and served the members and officers of the Board with an injunction restraining them from proceeding with the hearing.

Some thirty to forty-five days later, and after the injunction had been dissolved, a new date for hearing was set, and petitioner and his attorney appeared before the respondent Board at that hearing and introduced such witnesses and evidence as they desired.

Therefore, this record shows conclusively that petitioner was afforded due process in all orders and steps taken by the Board and the trial court. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Nebraska State Railway Commission, 297 U.S. 471, 56 S.Ct. 536, 80 L.Ed. 810.

Motion for rehearing is overruled.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00330-CV

MICHAEL EDWARDS APPELLANT

V.

TEXANS CREDIT UNION APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Michael Edwards appears to attempt to appeal from the trial 

court’s order holding him in contempt. In a letter dated September 8, 2011, we 

notified Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal 

because contempt orders are not appealable.2 We stated that unless Appellant

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2See Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662, 671 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

2001, pet. denied).
2

or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal on or before September 19, 2011, the appeal could be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction.3 We did not receive a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.4

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 3, 2011

 

3See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.

4See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
 
 I, W. Gray Hudkins, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008,as
hereby amended,fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K, as hereby
amended,fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Langer, Inc.
 
 A signed original 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.
 
 Dated:April 30, 2009
              /s/  W. Gray
      HudkinsW. Gray Hudkins, President
      andChief Executive
      Officer
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a list of the Corporation's subsidiaries as of June 30,
2003. The Corporation owns, directly or indirectly, 100% of the voting
securities of each subsidiary, unless noted otherwise.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        STATE OR JURISDICTION
NAME                                    OF ORGANIZATION
----                                    ---------------------


                                         <c>
Parlex Dynaflex Corporation                 California

Parlex International Corporation            United States Virgin Islands

Poly-Flex Circuits, Inc.                    Rhode Island

Parlex (Shanghai) Circuit Co., LTD.*        Shanghai

Parlex Asia Pacific LTD.                    Hong Kong

Poly-Flex Circuits Limited                  United Kingdom

Parlex (Europe) Limited                     United Kingdom

Parlex (Shanghai) Interconnect              Shanghai
Products, Co., Ltd.

Parlex Business Trust                       Massachusetts

Parlex Corporation Limited                  United Kingdom

Parlex (China) Investment Limited           British Virgin Islands

<FN>
--------------------
* 90.1% owned by Parlex Corporation
</FN>
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
#### Howard CLIFTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31214.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 9, 1959.

*872No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction- for the sale of whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a $200 fine.

The notice of appeal herein appears only as a docket entry upon the trial court’s docket; it is not shown to have been entered of record in the minutes of the court.

The notice of appeal must be entered of record, as required by Art. 827, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. A docket entry upon the trial court’s docket is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Martinez v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 246 S.W.2d 633; Keilmann v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 603, 288 S.W.2d 113.

The appeal is dismissed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

HAROLD MILLER

, Appellant,

v.

LINNETTE MILLER

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2718

[ April 3, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Dale C. Cohen , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE

- 15

- 005727

.

Harold Miller, Edgewater , pro se.

Craig J. Trocino of Michael A. Gottlieb, PA, Fort Lauderdale, for

appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

T

AYLOR

, M AY and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES LEASING CORP., Petitioner, v. CENTENNIAL LIQUOR STORES, INC., Respondent.

No. 16181.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

May 31, 1963.

*952Coke & Coke and Lawrence L. Beason, Dallas, for petitioner.

Jean Maier, Dallas, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, Justice.

Alleging that the record demonstrates absence of valid service, Petitioner, by Writ of Error, seeks reversal of a default judgment rendered in the Court below. Respondent’s petition in the trial court alleges Petitioner (defendant below) to be a Texas Corporation and that service might be had upon H. David Lasseter, its “authorized agent”. Sheriff’s return recited service on petitioner by serving H. David Lasseter, its “agent”. Judgment by default recited that service had been “duly and legally” had but defendant failed to appear.

Art. 2.11 of the Texas Business Corporation Act, V.A.T.S. governs method of service on domestic corporations. It is therein provided that the “president and all vice presidents of the corporation and the *registered agent*of the corporation shall be agents * * * upon whom any process * * * may be served.” (Emphasis ours.)

In this instance H. David Las-seter is neither alleged nor shown to be one of those named by law as authorized to be served on behalf of the corporation defendant. The case is governed by our recent decision in Texaco, Inc. v. McEwen, 356 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Civ.App., 1962, wr. err. ref. n. r. e.) wherein we reiterated the rule that the record must affirmatively show strict compliance with the statute. The record here fails to show that the person actually served was one of those expressly named by law to receive process on behalf of the corporation, and, accordingly, the judgment must fail.

Reversed and remanded.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03951

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

03951\03951_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03951\03951_Certification Statement.PDF Plant certification statement

x 03951\03951_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 03951\03951_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\03951_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03951\Supporting Documents\03951_Aerial Photo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03951\Supporting Documents\03951_Groundwater Monitoring Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03951\Supporting Documents\03951_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6996
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ONE HONDA ACCORD, VIN#: 1HGCB7675NA130489, Defendant, CHU WEN CHEUNG; MAN-FAI POON CHEUNG, Claimants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-3152-DKC) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chu Wen Cheung, Man-Fai Poon Cheung, Appellants Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district co urt's orders granting the Government's motion for a default decree of forfeiture and denying Appellants' motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c) to set aside the default judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. One Honda Accord , No. CA-95-3152-DKC (D. Md. May 3 & June 19, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

NORTH SHORE INJURY CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 21, 2017

v No. 330124 Wayne Circuit Court GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 14-008704-NF

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and W ILDER and S WARTZLE , JJ.

S WARTZLE

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result. There is no question that defendant—“ GEICO General Insurance Company”—did not insure the vehi cle involved in the accident at issue here. Rather, the vehicle was insured by “GEICO Casualty C ompany,” a separate, albeit sim ilarly named, insurance company. Given this, I am not aware of any legal theory under which defendant could be held liable to the plaintiff under Michigan’s no-fault regime.

I write separately to make clear that these proceedings were p rolonged by defendant’s own actions. In answer to plain tiff’s interrogatories served e arly in the case, defendant answered “Yes” to the following question: “Is the name and entity of the Defendant correctly stated in the pleadings? If not, what corrections should be made?” One woul d have expected that, in answer to this interrogatory, defendant would have made clear that it was not the insurer of the vehicle and therefore not a proper defendant to this lawsuit. This amb iguous answer might have been an

isolated matter and otherwise overlooked. But then defendant c ompounded the confusion when it simultaneously referred to itself as “GEICO General Insuranc e Company” in its summary disposition motion and “GEICO C asualty Company” in the attached brief in support.

While perfection in pleadings and papers may not be expected, diligence certainly is. Michigan Court Rule 2.309(B)(1) requires that, in answer t o an interrogatory, a party must provide information that “is ava ilable” to it, and one would ex pect that a party would know its own name. Moreover, a lawyer who signs a document represents t hat the lawyer has read it and that it “is well-grounded in fact,” and defendant’s brief misst ated a fundamental fact at issue here—defendant’s name. MCR 2.114(D). I do not suggest that ei ther of these were sanctionable errors; honest mistakes, of course, are made, especially in lig ht of the similarity of defendant’s and the insurer’s names. But, I do highlight these matters to illustrate that plaintiff’s confusion,-2- and the trial court’s ire, are understandable given defendant’s missteps below. If fees or costs are sought, then these considerations may be relevant to that proce eding.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 31.2

                               302 CERTIFICATIONS

                        I, Joseph J. Whang, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Printcafe Software, Inc.;

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 officers 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)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed 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 is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report 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

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's financial reporting
that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial 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 in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 14, 2003

                                             /s/ Joseph J. Whang
                                             -------------------
                                             JOSEPH J. WHANG
                                             Chief Financial Officer and
                                             Chief Operating Officer




                                       28
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Presidential Documents 8991 

Notice of February 7, 2024 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Widespread Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan and the Potential for a Deepening Economic Collapse in Afghanistan 

On February 11, 2022, by Executive Order 14064, I declared a national 

emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted 

by the widespread humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and the potential 

for a deepening economic collapse in Afghanistan. 

The widespread humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan—including the urgent 

needs of the people of Afghanistan for food security, livelihoods support, 

water, sanitation, health, hygiene, and shelter and settlement assistance, 

among other basic human needs—and the potential for a deepening economic 

collapse in Afghanistan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. 

In addition, the preservation of certain property of Da Afghanistan Bank 

(DAB) held in the United States by United States financial institutions 

is of the utmost importance to addressing this national emergency and 

the welfare of the people of Afghanistan. Various parties, including representatives of victims of terrorism, have asserted legal claims against certain 

property of DAB or indicated in public court filings an intent to make 

such claims. This property is blocked under Executive Order 14064. 

For these reasons, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14064 

of February 11, 2022, must continue in effect beyond February 11, 2024. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency 

declared in Executive Order 14064 with respect to the widespread humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and the potential for a deepening economic 

collapse in Afghanistan. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O1
8992 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 7, 2024. [FR Doc. 2024–02845 

Filed 2–8–24; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3395–F4–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PRESDOC-O1BIDEN.EPS</GPH>