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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2135 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act to improve the 

availability of Medicaid assistance for certain breast and cervical cancer 

patients in the territories. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2011 

Mr. PIERLUISI (for himself, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. 

SERRANO, and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend titles XI and XIX of the Social Security Act 

to improve the availability of Medicaid assistance for 

certain breast and cervical cancer patients in the territories. 

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 ‘‘Breast and Cervical 

5 Cancer Prevention and Treatment Improvement Act of 

6 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2135 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVED MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN 

2 BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER PATIENTS 

3 IN THE TERRITORIES. 

4 (a) ELIMINATION OF FUNDING LIMITATIONS.—Sec5 tion 1108(g)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1308(g)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: ‘‘With respect to fiscal years beginning with fiscal 

8 year 2012, payment for medical assistance for individuals 

9 who are eligible for such assistance only on the basis of 

10 section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XVIII) shall not be taken into 

11 account in applying subsection (f) (as increased in accord12 ance with paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of this sub13 section) to such commonwealth or territory for such fiscal 

14 year.’’. 

15 (b) APPLICATION OF ENHANCED FMAP FOR HIGH16 EST STATE.— 

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(b) of such Act 

18 (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by adding at the 

19 end the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding the first sen20 tence of this subsection, in the case of medical as21 sistance described in clause (4) of such sentence fur22 nished in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the 

23 Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa in a 

24 fiscal year, the Federal medical assistance percent25 age shall be the highest such percentage applied 

26 under such clause for such fiscal year for any of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2135 IH

1 50 States or the District of Columbia that provides 

2 such medical assistance for any portion of such fis3 cal year.’’. 

4 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

5 by paragraph (1) shall apply to payment for medical 

6 assistance for items and services furnished on or 

7 after October 1, 2011. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                                      
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore (Central & Eastern) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                                      
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore (Central & Eastern) Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 94     | 218    | 361    | 352   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 15     | 27     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### NEWSOME v. STATE.

No. 26472.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of mis■demeanor theft. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for 90 days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### GOMEZ v. STATE.

No. 26626.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for .appellant.

Plenry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., George P. Blackburn, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Wm. C. Dowdy, Jr., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

■ "The offense is robbery; the punishment, five years. "

On March 26 appellant; accompanied by his, attorney, the Honorable Bert Barr, ap*162peared before the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Dallas County charged with robbery with firearms. Upon written motion of the District Attorney, the court dismissed that portion of the indictment alleging the use of firearms. A jury was waived, and the appellant plead guilty. By agreement it was stipulated that if J. L. Davis were present he would testify that on the day charged in the indictment the appellant, accompanied by his accomplice and by the use of a pistol, came into his grocery store and robbed him of $189. The details of the robbery were stipulated. It was further stipulated that one Edgar Fitts, if present in court, would testify that he was present at the time the robbery was committed and would identify the appellant as being present at the time of the commission of the offense. The appellant took the stand and testified that he was guilty and had taken the money from Mr. Davis at his grocery store. The trial court carefully questioned the appellant concerning his gililt.

Following this, on April 3, appellant, through another- attorney, the Honorable Ray Stevens, filed a motion for new trial, alleging that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction; that there was no evidence of appellant’s sanity adduced at the hearing; and further alleging that the appellant had misunderstood his counsel and .entered his plea of guilty through fear of receiving the death penalty.

A hearing was had on such motion, and the careful trial court heard the evidence, and the same is before us.

The most that can be said for the showing made by the appellant at this hearing is that appellant’s companion had threatened him with a pistol prior to the robbery; that he had not told his lawyer- about it before the plea of guilty; and that he would rather have a punishment of five years than death. The appellant did not deny that he was present and exhibited a pistol on the day in question, nor did Mr. Davis or Mr. Fitts testify, nor was it shown' that they would not testify as it had been stipulated they would. Mr. Bert Barr testified 'fully at the hearing.

We have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court properly overruled the motion for new trial. This case is readily distinguishable from Eldridge v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 261 S.W.2d *579.*

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|North Dakota Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|North Dakota Shale Proved Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 119   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 528    | 439    | 901    | 1,056  | 933    | 1,258  | 1,795  | 1,638  | 1,182  | 1,149 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,939  | 2,284  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas Processed in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------- | -------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 10,273  | 236,886 | 101,613 | 124,130 | 61,953 | 68,690 | 128,051 | 114,792
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 109,982 | 101,824 | 101,824 |         |         |         |        |        |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
October 2, 2015

Mr. Richard Rubasch

President/Founder

Tilt Media Inc.

3209 Latham Drive

Madison, WI 53713

Dear Mr. Rubasch :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request , posted to the public docket on July 9, 2015, on behalf of

Tilt Media Inc. filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2801 , but we are unable to process your

request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requ ested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection  with the Annual Report of Revelstoke  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the year  ending May 31,  2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, D.
Bruce Horton,  Treasurer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: September 12, 2006



                                        By: /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON
                                            ___________________________
                                                D. Bruce Horton
                                                Treasurer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROCKY D. SPENCER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-68, CA-95-296-2)

Submitted: January 14, 1997 Decided: January 28, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rocky D. Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. David Glenn Barger, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Spencer, Nos. CR94-68; CA-95-296-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 1995). 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
Exhibit 12.1
 VWR FUNDING, INC.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 Successor
    
    
    
    PredecessorYear Ended December 31,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31, 2007June 30 -
    
    
    
    January 1 -(In Millions)
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    December 31, 2007
    
    
    
    June 29, 2007(Loss) income before income taxes
and equity method earnings
    
    $
    (39.6
    )
    
    $
    (450.1
    )
    
    $
    (91.7
    )
    
    
    $
    (34.3
    )Add: Equity method earnings
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.4Add: Fixed charges
    
    
    238.2
    
    
    
    301.1
    
    
    
    136.4
    
    
    
    
    107.4Earnings, as defined
    
    $
    198.6
    
    
    $
    (149.0
    )
    
    $
    44.7
    
    
    
    $
    73.5Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    226.8
    
    
    $
    289.6
    
    
    $
    130.4
    
    
    
    $
    101.8One-third rental expense
    
    
    11.4
    
    
    
    11.5
    
    
    
    6.0
    
    
    
    
    5.6Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    238.2
    
    
    $
    301.1
    
    
    $
    136.4
    
    
    
    $
    107.4Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
 (1)
    
    Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for the periods from June 30 through
December 31, 2007 and from January 1 through June 29, 2007
by $39.6
million, $450.1 million, $91.7 million and $33.9 million,
respectively.