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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1298 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct cost-benefit analyses 

for the provision of medical care by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

in certain geographic areas served by multiple Department of Veterans 

Affairs medical facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself, Mr. RUNYAN, Mr. ANDREWS, and Mr. SMITH of 

New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct costbenefit analyses for the provision of medical care by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs in certain geographic 

areas served by multiple Department of Veterans Affairs 

medical facilities. 

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 ‘‘Veterans’ Efficiencies 

5 Through Savings Act of 2011’’ or the ‘‘VETS Act of 

6 2011’’. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1298 IH

1 SEC. 2. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSES REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN 

2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS SERVED BY MULTIPLE 

3 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MED4 ICAL FACILITIES. 

5 (a) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS REQUIRED.—The Sec6 retary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a cost-benefit 

7 analysis of the provision of medical care by the Depart8 ment of Veterans Affairs for the following geographic 

9 areas: 

10 (1) Any 75 square mile area where three or 

11 more Department outpatient clinics are located. 

12 (2) Any 100 square mile area where two or 

13 more Department hospitals are located. 

14 (b) CONTENTS OF ANALYSIS.—In conducting a cost15 benefit analysis under subsection (a)— 

16 (1) for any area described in paragraph (1) of 

17 such subsection, the Secretary shall determine 

18 whether the benefits of operating all three clinics in 

19 the area outweigh the benefits of replacing such clin20 ics with one comprehensive outpatient clinic; 

21 (2) the Secretary shall consider the benefits of 

22 constructing a new Department hospital to serve vet23 erans residing in the area and the benefits of enter24 ing into an agreement with a non-Department hos25 pital for the provision of dedicated space within the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1298 IH

1 hospital to provide in-patient hospital care to vet2 erans residing in the area; and 

3 (3) the Secretary shall evaluate any agreements 

4 entered into with non-Department medical care pro5 viders to provide medical care to veterans residing in 

6 an area served by one or more of the outpatient clin7 ics or hospitals located in the area for which the 

8 analysis is conducted to determine whether to enter 

9 into such an agreement with any additional pro10 viders. 

11 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 6 

12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

13 Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on any cost14 benefit analysis conducted under this section. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
CHINA MINERAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION



                                             ____________, 2004



Charles Fu, Esq.
Fu & Tong LLC
245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor
New York, New York

Gentlemen:

     This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective
date ("Effective Date") of the registration statement for the initial public
offering ("IPO") of the securities of China Mineral Acquisition Corporation
("CMAC") and continuing until the consummation by CMAC of a "Business
Combination" (as described in CMAC's IPO Prospectus), Fu & Tong LLC shall make
available to CMAC certain office and secretarial services as may be required by
CMAC from time to time, situated at 245 Park Avenue, New York, New York. In
exchange therefore, CMAC shall pay Fu & Tong LLC the sum of $500 per month on
the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter.


                                           Very truly yours,

                                           CHINA MINERAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION


                                           By:
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:
                                              Title:



AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

FU & TONG LLC


By:
   ------------------------------
   Name: Charles Fu, Esq.
   Title: Partner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BUILDERS TRANSPORT, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              50
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                       456
<INVENTORY>                                      3,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,617
<PP&E>                                         309,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,235
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,762
<BONDS>                                        168,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,346
<SALES>                                        289,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               289,419
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (3,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,233)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,233)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This Certification is to accompany the Annual Report of Telebyte, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report").

I, Michael Breneison, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael Breneisen
-----------------------
Michael Breneisen
Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003
<PAGE>

                                EXHIBIT 10.15.3

                     CUMMINGS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC.
                                 STANDARD FORM                     796483-DAC-A

                             AMENDMENT TO LEASE# 3

  In connection with a lease currently in effect between the parties at 100
  Sylvan Road, Suite 100 Woburn, Massachusetts, executed on January 24, 1996 and
  terminating February 28, 2001 and in consideration of the mutual benefits to
  be derived herefrom, Cummings Properties Management, Inc., LESSOR, and Boston
  Communications Group, Inc. f/k/a Radio Telephone Systems, Inc., LESSEE, hereby
  agree to amend said lease as follows:

1.  The size of the leased premises is hereby increased to a new total of
    approximately 35,389 square feet (including 3.25% common area), with the
    addition of 100 Sylvan Road, Suite 550 and a portion of the west annex shown
    on the attached plan.

2.  *The Security Deposit is hereby increased by $9,000.00 from $61,000.00 to a
    new total of $70,000.00.  LESSEE shall pay said increase upon LESSEE's
    execution of this amendment.

3.  LESSOR, at an expense incorporated entirely into the base rent and at no
    further cost to LESSEE, shall in Suite 550 (only) construct LESSOR's
    standard office space according to a mutually agreed upon plan attached
    hereto before or about March 1, 1997.  Nothwithstanding the completion date
    for said construction, the increased rent provided below will commence as
    of February 1, 1997.

4.  *LESSOR or LESSEE hereby waive any and all rights to a jury trial in any
    summary process or

5.  LESSEE hereby warrants and represents that it has changed its name to
    Boston Communications Group, Inc.


All other terms, conditions and covenants of the present lease shall continue to
apply except that adjusted base rent shall be increased by $53,747.52 annually,
from a total of $375,325.28 to a new annual total of $429,072.80 or $35,756.07
per month.  Annual base rent for purposes of computing any future escalations
thereon shall be $418,607.60.  This amendment shall be effective February 1,
1997 and shall continue through the balance of the lease and any extensions
therefo unless further modified by written amendments.


In Witness Whereof, LESSOR and LESSEE have hereunto set their hands and common
seals this 5/th/ day of February, 1997.

LESSOR:                                     LESSEE:
CUMMINGS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT, INC.        RADIO TELEPIIONE SYSTEMS, INC


By:    s/W.S. Cummings                           By: s/Robert S. Sullivan
  --------------------                             ----------------------
     President                                        Robert Sullivan
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

# **Co-Registrant (Commission File Number000-30761):**

# ** **

**UbiquiTel Inc.**

**One West Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant (Commission File Number333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTel Operating Company**

**One West Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTelOperating Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, James J. Volk, Chief Financial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. andUbiquiTel Operating Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel OperatingCompany.

 
|   | UBIQUITEL INC.              |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |                        |
|   |                        |
|   | */s/ James J. Volk*         |   |
|   | James J. Volk               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |                        |
|   |                        |
|   | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY |
|   |                        |
|   |                        |
|   | */s/ James J. Volk*         |   |
|   | James J. Volk               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |                        |
|   |                        |
|   | May 6, 2004                 |

 

----
Back
      to Form 10K





Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002










Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
      Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
      year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results
      of
      operations as of and for the periods covered therein.











/s/
      J.
      Kimbrough Davis


J.
      Kimbrough Davis


Executive
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer





Date:
      March 15, 2007
#### STOKER COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Charles FERGUSON et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 3, 1955.

Craft & Stanfill, Plazard, for appellant.

Napier & Napier, Hazard, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.080 covering judgments less than $2,500.

We have examined the record and briefs, and conclude that the instructions given were 'proper and that the testimony as to value was competent.

Finding no prejudicial -errors, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          20,139
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              47
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,031
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     44,241
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         111,458
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           112,467
<LOANS>                                        390,388
<ALLOWANCE>                                     15,831
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,252
<DEPOSITS>                                     505,844
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,057
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            44
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 584,252
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 38,543
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,615
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                48,158
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,316
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 922
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,920
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  (1,862)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 784
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 28,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,216
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,216
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.55
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,686
<LOANS-PAST>                                       403
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   215
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 12,145
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,700
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,696
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,689
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               15,831
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            15,831
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,102
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RICKY MCKINLEY INGRAM, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00460-JAB-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2009 Decided: December 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky McKinley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky McKinley Ingram seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Take A Ride, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

October27, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John FERGUSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4219.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 26, 2002.

Decided Aug. 8, 2002.

David H. Wilmoth, David H. Wilmoth, L.C., Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sherry L. Muncy, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

John Ferguson appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to eleven months of imprisonment. Ferguson’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Although Ferguson was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, he has not done so. His attorney raises two issues.

First, Ferguson challenges the district court’s authority to impose a sentence upon revocation of his supervised release. We review for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). We find this argument to be without merit. *See Johnson v. United States,*529 U.S. 694, 713, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000).

Ferguson next contends the district court was required to give him credit for time previously served on post-release supervision when it sentenced him. At the time of Ferguson’s conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988 & Supp. V.) authorized the court to revoke a term of supervised release and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on post-release supervision upon finding a violation. Thus, the district court had the authority under § 3583 to sentence Ferguson to a period of incarceration without regard to the amount of time Ferguson previously served on post-release supervision.

Pursuant to *Anders,*this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and *584found none. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation of Ferguson’s supervised release and the ensuing sentence. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.*