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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2969 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2969

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 recognition of attending physician assistants as attending physicians 
                       to serve hospice patients.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

 Mr. Terry (for himself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
 and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
    to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the 
 recognition of attending physician assistants as attending physicians 
                       to serve hospice patients.

    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 ``Medicare Patient Access to Hospice 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS ATTENDING 
              PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICE PATIENTS.

    (a) Recognition of Attending Physician Assistants as Attending 
Physicians To Serve Hospice Patients.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1861(dd)(3)(B) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3)(B)) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or nurse'' and inserting ``, the 
                nurse''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or the physician assistant (as 
                defined in such subsection)'' after ``subsection 
                (aa)(5))''.
            (2) Clarification of hospice role of physician 
        assistants.--Section 1814(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting 
        ``or a physician assistant'' after ``a nurse practitioner''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      11,726,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,366,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,061,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,324,011)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,366,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,597,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             696,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,294,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,294,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,294,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.352)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.352)


</TABLE>
In the Senate of the United States, 

November 19, 2013. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3304) entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize and request 

the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. 

Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army for 

acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to authorize 

the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other veterans 

who were previously recommended for award of the Medal of 

Honor.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

On page 2, line 3, strike ‘‘AND REQUEST’’. 

On page 2, line 11, strike ‘‘and requested’’. 

On page 3, line 1, strike ‘‘AND REQUEST’’. 

On page 3, line 9, strike ‘‘and requested’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to authorize 

the President to award the Medal of Honor to Bennie G. 

Adkins and Donald P. Sloat of the United States Army 

for acts of valor during the Vietnam Conflict and to au-
2 

† HR 3304 EAS 

thorize the award of the Medal of Honor to certain other 

veterans who were previously recommended for award of 

the Medal of Honor.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 3304 

AMENDMENTS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27553]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-34-000]


Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 13, 2000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. 
(SPP), tendered for filing a request for recognition as a Regional 
Transmission Organization (RTO). SPP states that the filing includes 
its Open Access Transmission Tariff revised to meet all of the RTO 
requirements of Order No. 2000.
    The Applicants state that copies of the filing were served on all 
SPP members and customers, as well as on all state commissions within 
the region.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with Commission and are available for public inspection. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 
1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27553 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    The notice published in the October 17, 2000                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 61352)—announcing the prospective grant of an exclusive license for use of insulin producing cells differentiated from non-insulin producing cells—incorrectly listed the PCT Patent Application Serial Number as “PCT/US99/180899” and the PHS Ref. as “E-151-97/1”. NIH is publishing this notice to correct the PCT application number to read “E-251-97/1”.                

Dated: October 23, 2000.

Jack Spiegel,

Director, Division of Technology Development and Transfer, Office of Technology Transfer.

[FR Doc. 00-27889  Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Summary of Analytical Results(662 - April 2010)Sample ID662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRABDate4/5/10 4/12/10 4/19/10 4/26/10Top (ft)0000Total (T)/Bottom (ft)0000Analyteunits Diss. (D) Duplicate #1111PFOA ug/L T 10.3 11.2 10.5 7.70Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services. Reported resultsPFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acidug/L = micrograms per literrepresent the average (rounded) of analysis in triplicate.< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limitPage 1 of 1cwk 662 grab results_apr10.xls:Sheet17/23/2010 9:19 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,406
<INVENTORY>                                      1,126
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,464
<PP&E>                                          28,085
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,893
<BONDS>                                          4,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,231
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,560
<SALES>                                          3,814
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,576
<CGS>                                            2,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,301
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,984
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT W ALTER

IVAN RIVER

A-AYALA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-71597 Age n c y No. A077-531-708 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . W a lte r Ivan R ive ra -Ay a la , a native and c itiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s orde r de ny ing his motion to re c onside r. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of



# FIL ED MAR 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

m otion to re c onside r and re vie w de novo que stions of la w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Rive ra -Ay a la ’ s m otion to re c o nside r, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(b), where his prior m otion to re ope n wa s file d m ore tha n e ight y e ars a fte r his fina l orde r of re m ova l, a nd he fa ile d to e sta

blish the due dilige nc e re quire d to e quita bly toll thefiling de a dline , se e8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2) (m o tions to re ope n ge ne ra lly m ust be file d within 90 da

y s of fina l orde r of re m ova l ); Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679, 682 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe t itione r m ay

obta in e quita

ble tolling when

pre v e nte d from filing be c a use of de c e ption, fra

ud, or e rror whe re pe titione r “ m a de re a sona ble e fforts to pursuere lie f until [he ] le arne d of c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive ne ss” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 1 5 9 7
Biopolymer System Components
StormKlear Socks
Initial sample taken from skimmer 

outlet
Installation of Stormklear socks
Initial discharge from basin to 

siltbag post Stormklear
Silt bag discharge with Stormklear
Discharge from siltbag with 

increased rate of Stormklear
Cost Analysis

• 16 NTU discharge 

from silt bag

• 6 pairs of StormKlear 

socks - $2300.00

– Dose rate of 12 ppm

• $0.012 per gal.

• 67 NTU discharge 

from silt bag

• 2 pair of StormKlear 

socks - $750.00

– Dose rate of 4 ppm

• $0.004 per gal.

• PVC Unit - $400.00

• Silt bag (10’x15’) – $90.00

• 150’x60’x3’ = 200,000 gals

• 1 pair of socks ~ 100,000 gals

• 1283 NTU in basin
**Exhibit 3.1**

 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 

TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 

CERTIFICATE OFINCORPORATION 

OF 

AXEDA SYSTEMSINC. 

 

Pursuant to Section 242 

of the General Corporation Law of 

THE STATE OFDELAWARE 

 

Axeda Systems Inc. (hereinafter called the“***Corporation***”), organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify as follows: 

 

1. The original name of the Corporation was Divicore Inc. and the original Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed withthe Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 18, 1999. 

 

2. ARestated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on July 21, 1999 (the “***Certificate of Incorporation***”). 

 

3. The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby further amended by deletingthe first paragraph of Article Fourth and in its entirety and replacing it with the following language: 

 

“The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock to be designated, respectively, “Common Stock” and “PreferredStock.” The total number of shares that the Corporation is authorized to issue is one hundred five million (105,000,000). One hundred million (100,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, and five million (5,000,000)shares shall be Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share.” 

 

4. ThisCertificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation has been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

 

5. Pursuant to a resolution of its Board of Directors, a special meeting of the stockholdersof the Corporation was duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of theamendment. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its ChiefExecutive Officer this 6th day of January, 2005. 

 

/s/ Robert M. Russell Jr.
 
/s/ Lynn M. Magnani

Robert M. Russell Jr
 Lynn M. Magnani
Chief Executive Officer
 Secretary
 

2
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-10558

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bobby Joe Garcia, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-96-19

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Bobby Joe Garcia has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir.R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10558 Document: 00516570056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
No. 22-10558

2

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10558 Document: 00516570056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
EXHIBIT 32.1
                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C
                                  SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winfield Capital Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul A.
Perlin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.

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.


/s/ Paul A. Perlin
-----------------------------
Paul A. Perlin
Chairman of the Board &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: August 13, 2003


                                      -19-
#### RENDON v. STATE.

No. 22538.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1943.

Jno. T. Spann, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a fine of $250. It is alleged by complaint that appellant unlawfully opposed and resisted an officer in arresting another party for an offense constituting a misdemeanor.

The trial was to the court without a jury and the undisputed evidence shows that appellant was present with a great many others, most of whom were Mexicans, to witness the induction of one hundred thirty of their number into the service by the local draft board. The sheriff and his deputy were called to assist. A large number of the crowd were drinking tequila, aguadiente, and beer. One of the inductees became so boisterous that it was considered necessary to take him off a bus and put him in jail. The crowd resented the conduct of the sheriff and his deputy and began throwing missiles at them, some even attempting to extricate the prisoner. Appellant was identified as the one who threw a rock “about half the size of a-, cuspidor” at the sheriff and his deputy. One witness, identifying appellant as the party taking part in the affair, said: “I did not know the man’s name, but that defendant sitting by you (addressing the County Attorney), was present and wore an overseas cap, threw one of the rocks. I was standing some ten or twelve feet from him and I know he is the man. He was the only one there who had an overseas cap.” Another said: “I did not actually see the rock in the defendant’s hand, but I saw his arm go over as if he were throwing a ball, and I saw a rock half as big as a cuspidor right in front of it, going toward the officers. Rendon threw the rock. The defendant there is the man I saw on Wednesday, March 3rd, at the draft office. He was wearing an overseas cap. But the defendant is the same man”.

 The record is before us without bills of exception, and counsel attempts to raise questions about the admissibility oí evidence by presenting assignments oí er*344ror. So repeatedly have we called attention to the fact that assignments of error have no force to present a question in the appeal of a criminal case that it is not considered again necessary to refer to the statute. The only question for us to consider is the sufficiency of the evidence. The foregoing quotations amply support the court’s finding and justify the punishment assessed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.