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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1899 

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 

National Health Service Corps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. CARPER, Mr. 

GARDNER, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. WICKER, 

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

and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health 

centers and the National Health Service Corps. 

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 ‘‘Community Health In5 vestment, Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1899 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH 

2 CENTERS AND NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE 

3 CORPS. 

4 Section 221 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reau5 thorization Act of 2015 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—In addition to 

9 amounts appropriated under section 10503(b) of the 

10 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there 

11 are appropriated to the CHC Fund the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) For purposes of paragraph (1) of 

13 such section— 

14 ‘‘(i) for fiscal year 2018, 

15 $3,600,000,000; 

16 ‘‘(ii) for fiscal year 2019, 

17 $3,800,000,000; 

18 ‘‘(iii) for fiscal year 2020, 

19 $4,000,000,000; 

20 ‘‘(iv) for fiscal year 2021, 

21 $4,200,000,000; and 

22 ‘‘(v) for fiscal year 2022, 

23 $4,400,000,000. 

24 ‘‘(B) For purposes of paragraph (2) of 

25 such section— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1899 IS

1 ‘‘(i) $310,000,000 for fiscal year 

2 2018; 

3 ‘‘(ii) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 

4 2019; 

5 ‘‘(iii) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 

6 2020; 

7 ‘‘(iv) $355,000,000 for fiscal year 

8 2021; and 

9 ‘‘(v) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 

10 2022.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘and fiscal 

12 year 2107’’ and inserting ‘‘, fiscal year 2017, fiscal 

13 year 2018, fiscal year 2019, fiscal year 2020, fiscal 

14 year 2021, and fiscal year 2022’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Changes to Section 4 of the Iowa State 
Technical Guide

AGENCY:  Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION:  Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Iowa NRCS 
State Technical Guide for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY:  It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for 
Iowa that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide 
specifically in Section 4, Practice Standards and Specifications #600, 
Terrace and #620, Underground Outlet to account for improved 
technology. These practices can be used in systems that treat highly 
erodible land.

DATES:  Comments will be received on or before March 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Leroy Brown, State Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, 210 Walnut 
Street, Suite 693, Des Moines, Iowa 50309; at 515/284-4260; fax 515/
284-4394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS 
will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that 
period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition 
of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

    Dated: January 19, 2000.
Leroy Brown,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 00-3102 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-18-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Titanium Metals Corporation's Consolidated Financial Statements for the nine
months ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Consolidaed Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001011657
<NAME>                        Titanium Metals Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,513
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  81,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,128
<INVENTORY>                                    145,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               246,588
<PP&E>                                         407,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 759,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,139
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          201,250
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       350,354
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   759,358
<SALES>                                        320,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,513
<CGS>                                          318,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  318,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               36,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             6,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (36,733)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (12,871)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (31,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (873)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.04)



</TABLE>
#### WELLS v. STATE.

No. 20723.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 10, 1940.

Price & Moss, of Post, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The testimony of the arresting officers was to the effect that they secreted themselves near the back part of appellant’s cafe; that they saw some person approach in a truck and stop just back of the cafe; that appellant and Dock Kyle carried from the back of the cafe two cases of beer, Dock Kyle carrying one of said cases; that they placed the beer in a car which was being driven by Dock Kyle; that at this juncture the officers took charge of the beer’and arrested appellant.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied that the beer belonged to him. It was his version that the truck driver purchased it in wet territory and had brought it to the back of appellant’s restaurant for Dock Kyle; that he permitted the beer to remain on his premises merely as an accommodation to Kyle.

The court charged the jury, in part, as follows: “In this connection, you are further instructed that under the law when one stands charged with the offense of possessing liquor for the purpose of sale, the possession by the defendant of more than one quart of such liquor is prima facie evidence of guilt.” This charge was properly and timely excepted to by the appellant. The exception was well taken. The complaint and information charged the possession of beer for the purpose of sale. Subdivision (b), Art. 667-25, Vernon’s Texas P.C., provides: “Possession by any person in any dry area of beer in any quantity exceeding twenty-four (24) bottles having a capacity of twelve (12) ounces each shall be prima facie evidence of possession for the purpose of sale in a dry area.” Manifestly, the charge given by the court was not warranted by the statute.

Upon another trial the court should submit. appellant’s affirmative defense as presented in his requested instruction No. 2.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Order filed November 5, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00816-CV

____________

ESTATE OF SCOTT GREGORY SUMMERS, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-0073663

ORDER

On October 21, 2013, appellant filed a timely motion in this court 

challenging the trial court’s October 10, 2013, ruling sustaining a contest to her 

affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(1), (2). When a motion to 

review the trial court’s ruling on indigence is filed, the trial court clerk and the 

court reporter must prepare, certify, and file the record of the hearing on the 

contest to the claim of indigence within three days after the motion is filed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(3). No record has been filed. 
Rule 20.1provides that if the appellate court does not deny a motion within 

10 days after the motion is filed, this motion is granted by operation of law. Tex. 

R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4). This new rule places a heavy burden on the trial court clerk 

and the court reporter to act expeditiously in preparing, certifying, and filing the 

hearing record. If the trial court clerk and the court reporter do not file the hearing 

record within 10 days after the filing of the motion, as in this case, this court has no 

ability to review the merits of the motion, and the motion is granted by operation 

of law regardless of whether the motion has merit. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(4). 

More than 10 days have passed since the motion was filed, and appellant’s 

motion was granted by operation of law. Accordingly, appellant may proceed on 

appeal without the advance payment of costs. 

Therefore, we ORDER the Galveston County District Clerk and the official 

court reporter, John Partain, to prepare, certify, and file the appellate record 

without the advance payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(k). The record 

will be due in this court in 120 days.

PER CURIAM
#### Michael Ashkin et al., Respondents, v New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated June 21, 1989, which granted the plaintiffs’ renewed motion for partial summary judgment on the second cause of action of the verified complaint in the principal sum of $176,573.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the record reveals the existence of triable issues of fact warranting the denial of their renewed motion for partial summary judgment *(see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). For example, a significant factual issue exists regarding whether the plaintiffs knew from the defendant’s correspondence, and agreed, that a market-value adjustment would be applied to the plaintiffs’ "Fixed Dollar Account Balance” in implementing the annuity plan involved herein.

We find that the parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of the foregoing determination. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
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.
 Small Business Administration
 13 CFR 107.1150(a) sets forth the maximum amount of Leverage (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50) that a Small Business Investment Company may have outstanding at any time. The maximum Leverage amounts are adjusted annually based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The cited regulation states that SBA will publish the indexed maximum Leverage amounts each year in a Notice in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Accordingly, effective the date of publication of this Notice, and until further notice, the maximum Leverage amounts under 13 CFR 107.1150(a) are as stated in the following table: If your Leverageable Capital is:
Then your maximum Leverage is:(1) Not over $18,100,000
300 percent of Leverageable Capital(2) Over $18,100,000 but not over $36,300,000
54,300,000 + [2 × (Leverageable Capital—$18,100,000)](3) Over $36,300,000 but not over $54,400,000
$90,700,000 + (Leverageable Capital—$36,300,000)(4) Over $54,400,000
$108,800,000
 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, small business investment companies) Dated: November 30, 2000. Don A. Christensen, Associate Administrator for Investment.


[FR Doc. 00-31064 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Joyce Shapiro, Appellant, v Yechiel C. S. Shapiro, Respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered June 28, 1989, as granted the defendant *492husband’s motion for omnibus relief to the extent of directing her to pay him $7,727, authorized the defendant to enter a money judgment in that amount, and denied her cross motion, *inter alia,*to stay enforcement of all monetary provisions in the divorce judgment in favor of the defendant until he delivered a valid Orthodox Get to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the failure on the part of the plaintiff to pay the defendant the second of three installments of a distributive award pursuant to the judgment of divorce that terminated their marriage, the defendant moved to hold the plaintiff in contempt of court and to direct her to pay the outstanding balance of the distributive award. The plaintiff thereafter cross-moved to hold the defendant in contempt of court for purportedly filing a perjurious affidavit misrepresenting that he had removed all religious barriers to the plaintiff’s remarriage. The crux of the plaintiff’s contention in her cross motion and on appeal is that the Get which the defendant attempted to obtain would not be acceptable to the Orthodox rabbinical authority which she purportedly followed, and that she was relieved of her obligation to pay the last two installments of the distributive award until he delivered an Orthodox Get to her. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion to the extent of directing her to pay $7,727, and authorizing the defendant to enter a money judgment in that amount, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion.

The Supreme Court’s determination was proper. The plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that the Get which the defendant attempted to obtain failed to satisfy the provisions of Domestic Relations Law § 253 (3) were unsupported by any documentary proof. Accordingly, these assertions did not defeat the defendant’s statement pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 253 (3) that he had done all in his power to remove any barriers to the plaintiff’s remarriage. Mangano, P. J., Eiber, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT, DR. LORENZO GARCIA,

AND MARK MENDOZA,

 Appellants,

v.

MICHAEL McINTYRE AND

LAURA McINTYRE, INDIVIDUALLY

AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR 

CHILDREN, K.M., L.M., C.M., M.M., 

AND L.M.,

 Appellees. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00329-CV

Appeal from

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2007-3210)

J U D G M E N T

This Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was error in 

the judgment. We therefore (1) reverse all three disputed orders of the trial court; (2) render 

judgment dismissing all of the McIntyres’ state law claims against the District; (3) dismiss all 

claims of any nature against Dr. Garcia and Mendoza with prejudice; (4) award Appellants their 

costs and fees incurred herein and any such further relief to which they may be entitled; and (4) 

remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings regarding the claims and counterclaims 

that remain pending there, in accordance with this Court=s opinion. We further order that 

Appellants recover from Appellees all costs, both in this Court and the court below, for which let 

execution issue, and this decision be certified below for observance.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice 

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
Exhibit 3.2

                                                                FILED# C14766-95

DEAN HELLER                                             Certificate of
Secretary of State                                        Amendment
101 North Carson Street, Suite 3            (PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4786
(775) 684-5708
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                         For Nevada Profit Corporations
          (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)
                             - Remit in Duplicate -

1.   Name of Corporation:

                       CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT CENTERS, INC.


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

2.   The articles  have been amended as follows  (provide  article  numbers,  if
     available):

                                     First:
                         The name of this corporation is
                               e-Perception, Inc.

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

3.   The  vote by which  the  stockholders  holding  shares  in the  corporation
     entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such
     greater  proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a
     vote by classes or series;  or as may be required by the  provisions of the
     articles of incorporation have voted in favor o the amendment is*:

                                     64.7%


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

4.   Signatures (Required):


     /s/William E. Richardson                      /s/Patricia Harris
     -----------------------------                 -----------------------------
     President                           and       Secretary

*If any proposed  amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative
or other  right  given to any class or series of  outstanding  shares,  then the
amendment  must be approved by the vote,  in  addition to the  affirmative  vote
otherwise  required,  of the  holders of shares  representing  a majority of the
voting power of each class or series  affected by the  amendment  regardless  of
limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT:  Failure to include any of the above information and remit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Annual Report of Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership (MCV) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James M. Rajewski, Chief Financial Officer, Vice
President and Controller of MCV, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MCV. /s/ James M. Rajewski
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *514Ronald Lofton, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered April 10, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

The defendant waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement. As we find that this waiver was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSEPH SHERMAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3056

[ October 25, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Cynthia L. Cox

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312010CF001593A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Aff irmed.

T

AYLOR

, D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.