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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1844 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use existing authorities 

to furnish health care at non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities 

to veterans who live more than 40 miles driving distance from the 

closest medical facility of the Department that furnishes the care sought 

by the veteran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2017 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself and Ms. STEFANIK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use existing 

authorities to furnish health care at non-Department of 

Veterans Affairs facilities to veterans who live more than 

40 miles driving distance from the closest medical facility 

of the Department that furnishes the care sought by 

the veteran. 

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 Access to 

5 Community Care Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1844 IH

1 SEC. 2. USE OF EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF2 FAIRS AUTHORITIES TO FURNISH HEALTH 

3 CARE TO CERTAIN VETERANS WHO HAVE GE4 OGRAPHIC INACCESSIBILITY TO CARE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

6 shall use the authorities specified in subsection (b) to fur7 nish hospital care and medical services at non-Department 

8 of Veterans Affairs facilities to veterans who reside more 

9 than 40 miles driving distance from the closest medical 

10 facility of the Department to the residence of the veteran 

11 that furnishes the hospital care or medical services that 

12 are sought by the veteran, including a community-based 

13 outpatient clinic. 

14 (b) AUTHORITIES.—The authorities specified in this 

15 subsection are the following: 

16 (1) Section 1703 of title 38, United States 

17 Code, relating to contracts for the furnishing of hos18 pital care and medical services through non-Depart19 ment facilities. 

20 (2) Section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, 

21 and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113– 

22 146; 128 Stat. 175), relating to the furnishing of 

23 hospital care and medical services to veterans 

24 through non-Department entities if the veteran is 

25 unable to schedule an appointment for the receipt of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1844 IH

1 such care or services within the wait-time goals of 

2 the Veterans Health Administration. 

3 (3) Any other authority under the laws admin4 istered by the Secretary relating to the furnishing of 

5 hospital care and medical services at non-Depart6 ment facilities. 

7 (c) HOSPITAL CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES.—In 

8 this section, the terms ‘‘hospital care’’ and ‘‘medical serv9 ices’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 1701 

10 of title 38, United States Code. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC to Discuss Security Violations at Nine Mile Point Station

----

----

I-98-53

May 7, 1998

**NRC TO DISCUSS SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT NINE MILE POINT STATION**

A pair of apparent violations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements at the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station will be the subject of a meeting between NRC staff and representatives of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation on Monday, May 11. The apparent violations involve the utility's handling of information pertaining to plant security.

The meeting, scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa., will be open to the public for observation.

On January 24, records personnel found seven boxes in the records management vault at the plant, which is located in Oswego, N.Y. Although the boxes contained safeguards, or plant security, information, they were kept in the vault, which is not an approved storage facility. In addition, the personnel working in the vault were not authorized to have access to that material. The NRC does not believe plant security was compromised as a result of breakdowns.

The other violation stems from Niagara Mohawk's failure to properly evaluate the significance of the discovery and to report it to the NRC, as required.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01192]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate 
for Second Quarter FY 2015

    In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 13--Business 
Credit and Assistance Sec.  123.512, the following interest rate is 
effective for Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans 
approved on or after January 20, 2015.
    Military Reservist Loan Program--4.000%.

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-01192 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 28, 2001

LAURA MAYSHARK NICHOLS v. CRAIG ALAN NICHOLS 

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County

No. 18062 G. Richard Johnson, Chancellor

FILED MARCH 29, 2001

No. E1999-2825-COA-R3-CV

Craig Alan Nichols appeals the decree of the Trial Court which, among other things, granted his wife

a divorce. All of the issues he raises are dependent upon a consideration of the facts introduced in

evidence. Because we have no transcript or statement of the evidence we must conclusively presume

the evidence presented justified the judgment of the Trial Court. We accordingly affirm the

judgment pursuant to Rule 10(a) of this Court.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; 

Cause Remanded

HOUSTON M.GODDARD,P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P.FRANKS and

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JJ., joined.

Craig Alan Nichols, Appellant, Pro Se

Laura Mayshark Nichols, Appellee, Pro Se

OPINION

Craig Alan Nichols, an inmate in a Penal Institution of this State, appeals a judgment

rendered against him in a divorce case brought by his wife, Laura Mayshark Nichols. Mr. Nichols'

appellate brief raises the following issues:

1. Defendant’s Counsel misunderstood his wishes concerning this matter.

Defendant did not want a divorce, and wife was guilty of similar conduct. A

person can’t decide when is the best time to use a trump card, Plaintiff’s actions

in the two and one half years following the allegations show that she had resumed

a marriage relationship with the Defendant. 

2. The Chancellor erred in the Final Decree For Absolute Divorce, by ruling the

Court reserves the issues of child visitation and support. Defendants motion for
-2-

a New Trial or to Alter and Amend the findings, asking the court to set visitation

for four hours once every three weeks.

3. Awarding the Plaintiff alimony in solido, taking the Fifteen Thousand

Dollars ($15,000.00) that Defendant contributed to the purchase of the home.

4. Defendants personal property in Plaintiffs possession, Court did not hold

Plaintiff financially responsible for personal property that she either sold or

wanted to keep or destroyed.

Although both parties were represented by counsel in the Trial Court, no transcript or

statement of the evidence was filed. Consequently, we are unable to reach the merits of the issues

raised, which are wholly dependent upon the facts adduced below, but must conclusively presume

that the evidence presented justified the judgment of the Trial Court. In re Rockwell v. Arthur, 673

S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). 

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded

for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary and collection of costs below. Costs of

appeal are adjudged against Mr. Nichols. 

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
#### Alfred W. MINOT, Essie Minot, also known as Mrs. Alfred Minot, and Richard Suydam, Appellants, v. CHARLES YOUNG CONSTRUCTION, INC., a corporation, Appellee.

No. 19377.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

April 20, 1965.

E. R. Crain, Agana, Guam, Earl Robinson, Fong, Miho, Choy & Robinson, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellants.

David M. Shapiro, Agana, Guam, for appellee.

Before BARNES, JERTBERG and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On the theory that the contract was terminated, appellants assert that the appellee’s measure of damages should have been in quantum meruit rather than pursuant to the contract price. No notice of termination was given by the appellants, however, and the District Court found no breach by appellee which would have warranted termination. The only notice given by appellants was expressly in accordance with the terms of paragraph #9 (Exh. 5). While the notice purports to terminate “in accordance with the terms of paragraph #9,” paragraph #9 does not provide for termination, but permits appellants to replace appellee in the completion of the contract.

Appellants assert that the suit was prematurely brought by appellee and that appellee should have awaited completion of the contract in order that the exact cost of completion could have been reflected in the measure of damages. Appellants, however, by the time of trial had given no indication of an intention to complete construction. Had they wished to establish more precisely the cost of completion, they could have done so. Further, as determined by the District Court, appellants were themselves in *672breach of paragraph #9 by failing to permit appellee to proceed with an offer of completion which had been made by it within the permissible time.

We find no error.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 90-6211.

#### Bousquet *v.*New Hampshire.

Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.
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 ILLIAM ZEPEDA, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-71452

Ta x C t. No. 9552-11 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A, OW ENS, a nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s. W illia m Ze p e da a p p e a l s pro se from

the Tax C ourt’ s orde r and de c ision gran ting theC om

m issione r’ s m otion for e n try of de c i sion re ga

rding a fe de ra l tax lie n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7482(a )(1). W e re vie w de novo. C harlotte ’s Offic e Boutique , Inc . v . C omm’r , 425 F.3d 1203, 1211 (9th C ir. 2005).



# FIL ED N OV 27 2015 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 ora l a

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

The Tax C ourt prope rly

gran te d the C o m

m issione r’ s m o tion for e ntry of de c ision, susta

ining in pa

rt a fe de ra l tax lie n re ga

rding ta xlia bility for the y e ars 2005 a nd 2006, be c a

use Ze pe da

fa ile d to ra ise the unde rly ing ta x lia bility in a c olle c tion dueproc e ss (“ C DP” ) he aring. Se e Tre a s. R e g . § 301.6330-1(f)(2) Q & A F3 (whe n a

taxpa y e r disa g re e s with a

notic e of de te rm ination, thetaxpa y e r m a y a sk the Tax C ourt to c onside r the issue s tha t we re prope rly

ra ise d in the C D P he aring); Giame lli v . C

omm’r , 129 T.C . 107, 115 (2007) (Ta x C ourt doe s not ha

ve a uthority to c onside r c ha lle nge s to unde rly ing ta x lia bility tha t we re not prope rly ra ise d be fore the a

ppe a ls offic e ). W e re je c t Ze p e da ’ s c onte ntions tha t the Tax C ourt e rre d

by susta ining the notic e of de te rm ination or im prope rly de nie d him

a tria l. The C om m issione r’ s m otion for a

n e xe m ption, file d Oc tobe r 19, 2015, is gran te d. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 7 1 4 5 2 2
No. 86-1122.

#### Smith, Administratrix of the Estate of Smith, et al. *v.*City of Philadelphia et al.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Pa. dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
#### Leslie R. Curtis, pro ami, *vs.*Auburn Paper Box Company.

Androscoggin County.

Decided November 17, 1911.

Action on the case brought by the plaintiff, a boy 19 years of age, to recover damages to his left hand while in the employment of the defendant. This case has been before the Law Court once before. (See 107 Maine, 528.) At the conclusion of the evidence in the second trial the presiding Justice ordered a verdict for the defendant and the plaintiff excepted.

Exceptions overruled.

*McGillicuddy & Morey,*for plaintiff.

*Oakes, Pulsifer & Ludden,*for defendant.
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 the Treasury United States Mint
 AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing pricing changes for 2015 products, as follows: Product
2015 Retail priceAmerican Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin
$48.95American Eagle One Ounce Silver Uncirculated Coin
39.95Congratulations Set
50.95United States Mint Proof Set®
32.95United States Mint Uncirculated Set®
28.95America the Beautiful Quarters Circulating Coin SetTM
7.95Annual Uncirculated Dollar Coin Set
46.95America the Beautiful Five-Ounce Silver Uncirculated CoinTM (5 issues)
149.95
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Lhotsky, Acting Associate Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW, Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500. Authority:
                        31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, 5132 & 9701. Dated: January 20, 2015. Richard A. Peterson, Deputy Director for Manufacturing and Quality, United States Mint.


[FR Doc. 2015-01529 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-37-P
# L_2015245EN.01000901.xml

| 22.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1572

of 18 September 2015

appointing an Austrian member and an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January, on 5 February and on 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January, on 5 February and on 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

| (2) | A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Hans NIESSL, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Hans NIESSL,

| (3) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Christian ILLEDITS, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Christian ILLEDITS,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Mr Christian ILLEDITS, Landtagspräsident Burgenland |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Christian ILLEDITS, Landtagspräsident Burgenland

Article 2

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Mr Hans NIESSL, Landeshauptmann Burgenland. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Hans NIESSL, Landeshauptmann Burgenland.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2015.

For the Council

The President

C. DIESCHBOURG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70.

3

---
#### Peters, Respondent, vs. Rock County, Appellant.

For the appellant: *John H. Matheson*of Janesville, and *Arnold, Caskey & Robson*of Beloit. .

For the respondent: *McGowan & Geffs*of Janesville.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **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 on Form 10-KSB of Stronghold Technologies,
        Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2005as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
        undersigned, Christopher J. Carey, President and Chief Executive Officer
        and
        Principal Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.
  *Dated:
          April 28, 2006*
  */s/
          Christopher J. Carey*
 *Christopher
          J. Carey*
 *President
          and Chief Executive Officer and*
 *Principal
          Financial Officer*
 *
        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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

ZORAN CORPORATION

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 theQuarterly Report of Zoran Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Schneider, VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   November 14, 2003 |
|---------------------------------|
|                            | /s/ Karl  Schneider |   |
|                            | Karl  Schneider |
|                            | Vice  President, Finance and |
|                            | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
(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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control 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.
  /s/ Gary W. Bogatay, Jr.