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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1354 

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, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

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, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Patient Ac5 cess to Hospice Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1354 IS

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSIST2 ANTS AS ATTENDING PHYSICIANS TO SERVE 

3 HOSPICE PATIENTS. 

4 (a) RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN AS5 SISTANTS AS ATTENDING PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOS6 PICE PATIENTS.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(dd)(3)(B) of 

8 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3)(B)) 

9 is amended— 

10 (A) by striking ‘‘or nurse’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

11 the nurse’’; and 

12 (B) by inserting ‘‘, or the physician assist13 ant (as defined in such subsection)’’ after ‘‘sub14 section (aa)(5))’’. 

15 (2) CLARIFICATION OF HOSPICE ROLE OF PHY16 SICIAN ASSISTANTS.—Section 1814(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of 

17 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

18 1395f(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or a 

19 physician assistant’’ after ‘‘a nurse practitioner’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

22 or after January 1, 2016. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32B


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 AutoInfo, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William
Wunderlich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.
  A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
  Date:
   November 13,
2009
 
  /s/ William
Wunderlich
  William
Wunderlich
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R AM IR O PAZ-PULUC and LETIC IA PAZ, Pe titione rs, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 14-73126 Age n c y Nos. A071-585-393

A097-854-044 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 April 26, 2016 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , WA RDLAW , a

nd PAEZ, C i rc u it Judge s. R am iro Pa z -Puluc , a

native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a l a , a nd Le tic ia Pa z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe tition for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing the ir a

p p lic ations for c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is



# FIL ED M AY02 2016 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).gove rne d

by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l de te rm ination re ga

rding c ontinuous phy sic a l pre se nc e . Ibarra-Flore s v . Gonzale s, 439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th C ir. 2006). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the p e tition for re v i e w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t pe titione rs did not de m onstra

te the te n y e ars of c ontinuous phy s ic a l pre se n c e re quire d for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l , whe re pe titione rs provide d insuffic ie nt

doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e . Se e 8 U.S.C . §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A), 1229a (c )(4)(B )-(C ). To the e xte nt pe titione rs ra ise a c la im of ine ffe c t ive a s sista

nc e of c ounse l, we la c k jurisdic t ion to re vie w tha t une xha uste d c la im . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); se e also Barron v. Ashc roft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ [Se c t ion] 1252(d)(1) m andate s e xha

ustion a nd the re fore ge ne ra lly

ba rs us, for la c k

of subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion, from

re a c hing the m e rits of a

le ga l c la im not pre se nte d in a dm inistra

tive proc e e dings be low.” ) C ontra ry to pe titione rs’ c onte ntion, theB IA did not e rr in de c lining to a ddre s s non-dispositive i ssue s. Se eSime onov v . Ashc roft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ As a

ge ne ra l rule c ourts a

nd a ge nc ie s a

re not re quire d to m ake findings on issue s the de c i sion of whic h is unne c e ssa ry to the re sults they

re a c h.” (c ita tion a nd quota tion m a rks om itte d )). 1 4 - 7 3 1 2 6

2In light of this disposition, we do not re a c h pe t itione rs’ re m a i ning c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t and DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 4 - 7 3 1 2 6 3
EXHIBIT
32(a)





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of MICROS Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (“Form 10-Q”) for the three
month period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, A.L. Giannopoulos, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of MICROS Systems, Inc., certify that based on my
knowledge:




(1)
            The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      November 5, 2009
              /s/ A.L. GiannopoulosA.L.
      Giannopoulos
CONTOOL NANDuglill WORM COPY

414.04-a-Mitsr "'." 'T "

A'tif

•

.204ae "Air .944(164

Of 

(14 Jac SZ-76 /041- )
ata-A,

ciactr"., c.e.guaw•

44.

e. rXe_.-/

L.

Rata eAwf;stee-Xx4,

grivil9/

A. A.A..?

pexed

C. Ate44•44/

.

) ;414e/24.s-ea

. Ct.)

(1)

7 6)AI-s444 Zfr:

,01,1

US/8 )74t-r4ra
•

er•

• •

2.. lee-#024.4447

•

. s'.

414.&t.t

ed)tt.se4.44c e9

....••••••••••• • • • • •••••••• • • • ••• ••• ••••• ••• ••• "

w••nn••nnn••n ••nn•• .01,1•1•11•. •n••• NOW

•

3 #.1>4

P. /9 ,a(f76.zel

ealos

1.
04, eitataf.dAto

A. In

f -14441 Andete

4v-hots.- 04;

--"

to:Z.4./41Z:

/. et46 AteAA4A;so je-otti

A_

L. 7

etv-fiLe..fei

4

• . &44 D Agfa

407:70fze

z. z•-•Gcte.,NP-#7/ it&o.CSt.00

47

E Cato trure-ti tz;</c.i 61414,7

ifunut.44 044.4.4.

e. eitig.e.71

n,44, freicA, _44.74.1

S.
%-.4c.0444“4,14-Tznid

tecio tudi taw

z • ArsedApg-641.-. _

•1. thum f-Aci grAL4prire.. .

A44-/-904"-t
First Amendment to  Fourth Amended and Restated Severance Pay Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas Board
 Whereas Amendment
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 1.01 of the Existing Plan Good Reason
  Amendment of Section 2.02 of the Existing Plan
 Severance Amount times provided, however
 Further Amendment of Section 2.02 of the Existing Plan




---



##### 



x y z
 Amendment of Article II of the Existing Plan
 Compliance With Section 409A of the Code Termination of
Employment separation from service specified employee
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 -2-




---



##### 



Severability
 Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The
United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and
the Rights of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without
Reference to Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.Printed Name:Title: -3-
1

TOPIERET1St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C. •

Ilunaggpint

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 29 May 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. HALL, ASD(I)

SUBJECT: Battlefield ELINTStudy

The NRO Staff has discussed with your staff their plans

for conducting a stu efield ELINT problem under

a contract with the The approach being taken

for this study divi s it nto separate areas - the

analysis of a specific battlefield scenario and the design of

11111

satellite systems to solv ELINT collection problem in

Europe Because of the, . nature of the second half of

the study, I think the st4y should be conducted as two distinct efforts with the first effort terminating with the

analysis of the scenario; that is, with Task 8 of the work

statement.

As you know, the NRO and DIA have jointly established a

tactical ELINT panel which has representation from all interested members of the intelligence community, including your

office. This panel, which was instrumental in establishing

the JCS, OSD, and USIB approved tactical CLINT requirements,

Would provt propriate mechanism for evaluating the first

part of th tudy results and subsequently incorporating

them into the tactical ELINT requirement, if that is deemed.

necessary.

Concerning the portion of your study, with the

ELINT collection requ resents as determined by the •

study in hand, the NRO will, either throtgh the tact a INT

panel or separately, contract for further studies related

specifically to satellite design parameters. I feel this is

ELASSIMID 

ROAM NOM GENERAL HON

!MOM OF VIECITIVE 002 Mil WI

DAMON CATEGORY an mu) m or ion

AUTOMATICALLY DECLASSIFIED ON

Impossible to Ootomine 

Meth", doom or gnat, it oty)

40P-SEGRETIII112842-7:

am amn

mon
--TOP-SECRET--

NAM' •M

the most appropriate way to proceed since the NRO would ulti

mately be responsible for satellite development and operation.

I believe we should also keep the option open to do some of

this work in-house, with a different contractor, or even with

competitive contracts.

as

-TOP-SECRETCONIU0141.28427:

COOT COM!
#### Braintree National Bank *vs.*Ernest H. Payne & another.

Norfolk.

November 9, 1938.

May 23, 1939.

Present: Field, C.J., Lummus, Dolan, Cox, & Ronan, JJ.

*Bills and Notes,*Discharge. *Accord and Satisfaction.*

A finding was warranted that there was an accord and satisfaction relieving the maker of a mortgage note from liability thereon under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 107, § 142 (4), where he conveyed the mortgaged property without consideration to one who made repairs thereon and paid the interest on the note for several years, pursuant to the payee’s promise to cancel the note upon such conveyance.

Contract. Writ in the District Court of East Norfolk dated May 26, 1937.

Upon removal to the Superior Court, the action was tried before *Walsh,*J.

*R. A. Hunt,*for the plaintiff.

*G. W. Abele,*for the defendants.

Ltjmmtjs, J.

The defendants obtained a verdict in an action upon a mortgage note for $2,100 and interest, given by them to the plaintiff bank on December 5, 1927. The *185only exception argued is to the denial of the plaintiff’s motion for the entry of a verdict for the plaintiff under reserved leave. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 120. Treating that exception as raising the question whether the evidence warranted the verdict for the defendants *(Potter*v. *Dunphy,*297 Mass. 345), we find no error.

There was evidence that on April 28, 1931, a committee consisting of the plaintiff’s cashier, now deceased, and two directors, was appointed to serve “relative to the Payne mortgage”; that the committee never.made a formal report; that the defendants offered to surrender the mortgaged property to the plaintiff, but the cashier said that the plaintiff did not want it; that the defendants then .offered to convey the property to one Reynolds, who was more responsible and who would make considerable repairs, if the plaintiff would relieve them of liability on the mortgage note; that the cashier undertook to consult the officials of the plaintiff about that proposal; that later the cashier said that it would be all right to convey the property to Reynolds and that the plaintiff would cancel the note; that the defendants on May 8, 1931, conveyed the property to Reynolds without receiving any consideration from him; that Reynolds, though he signed no note, did make repairs to the extent of $1,500 and upon notice from the plaintiff paid the interest to the plaintiff for more than five years, during which the defendants had nothing to do with the property and had no communication with or from the plaintiff about it or the mortgage note.

It could have been found that there was an accord and satisfaction, bringing the case within G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 107, § 142 (4). See also *Pearson*v. *O’Connell,*291 Mass. 527, 528. The defence does not depend upon a renunciation under § 145. Williston, Contracts, (Rev. Ed.) §§ 1189, 1192, 1832, 1833.

*Exceptions overruled.*
99-1689.

#### State ex rel. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Webb.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relators’ motion for issuance of alternative writ and relators’ motion to expedite emergency relief requested,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within twenty days of this entry. Relators shall file their merit brief within twenty days of the filing of evidence; respondent shall file his merit brief within twenty days of the filing of relators’ merit brief; and relators shall file any reply brief within five days thereafter.
____ ---" 6 ..... 

Approved for Release: 2017/08/17 C05099751 

·)[ll\[ I [ 

SECRET E 

Approved for Release: 2017/08/17 C05099751
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Registration for the Director’s Innovation Initiative is open until August 11, 2021

By NRO Office of Public Affairs

                CHANTILLY, Va.   –              
The Director’s Innovation Initiative (DII) is an annual NRO program that solicits proposals from the U.S. government, industry and academic sources looking for classified or unclassified, low-maturity technology that could eventually advance for use in NRO’s overhead systems. Applicants can receive up to $500,000 in funding for accepted proposals.

“We’re looking for those high-risk, innovative concepts that are going to fundamentally change how we do our mission in space,” said DII Program Manager Alex Kordell on The Dish podcast.

The DII has six areas of interest: remote sensing, apertures, communications, systems design, sensemaking, and other disruptive concepts. Kordell explained in the podcast that the DII program is looking for proposals that align with NRO’s strategic mission.

“We’re always looking to widen our aperture, really pick up a lot of the companies, the researchers and the scientists that we don’t get in our normal solicitations that go out for our satellite systems,” Kordell said.

To learn more about the DII program and how to apply, listen to the full DII podcast on Soundcloud, Spotify, or Apple Podcasts (@NatReconOfc). To submit a proposal, register and apply at the Acquisition Center of Excellence Acquisition Research Center. Applicants have until August 11, 2021 to apply.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control, Critical Area Planting, Nutrient Management, Pond, Shallow Water Development and Management, Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility, Spoil Spreading, Waste Storage Facility, Waste Treatment, Waste Utilization, Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Schick Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ronald Rosner, Principal 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 the best of my knowledge:

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

4.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


                                        /s/ Ronald Rosner
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Ronald Rosner
                                        Director of Finance and Administration
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
                                        June 23, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Schick Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Schick
Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ANDREW SEARCY, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2013-3175

______________________ 

Petition for review from the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT4324120759-I-1. 

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge. 

O R D E R

Andrew Searcy, Jr. (“Searcy”) applies for an exemption from the user fees associated with electronic access to 

court records.

The Public Access to Court Electronic Records 

(“PACER”) system allows users to view and print case 

filings, judicial opinions, and other docket information 

from the federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate courts. 

A small fee is ordinarily required to search and print such 

Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2013
2 SEARCY V. AGRICULTURE

documents, but the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule

(“Schedule”) carves out a narrow exception to that rule, 

allowing courts discretion to exempt certain persons or 

classes of persons from payment. 

The Schedule makes clear, however, that “[c]ourts 

should not . . . exempt individuals and groups that have 

the ability to pay the statutorily established access fee.” 

Accordingly, a movant seeking a fee waiver must demonstrate that the exemption “is necessary in order to avoid 

unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to 

information.” Based on the papers submitted, the court is 

unable to say that Searcy has met this standard as he has 

not demonstrated the inability to pay the fee. Thus, this 

court must deny his request. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The application for an exemption from the fees for 

accessing documents on PACER is denied. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk 

s19

Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2013
#### Engel, Appellant, vs. City of Milwaukee, Respondent.

*October 8*

October 27, *1914.*

*Municipal corporations: Liability for negligence of employees: Governmental functions.*

A city is not liable for tbe negligence of one in its employ while engaged in the performance of public or governmental duties, such as the running of an automobile in the service of the fire and police alarm system of the city.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: OkreN T. Williams, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*'*Tbis action was brought against tbe defendant, city of *Milwaukee,*to recover damages alleged to bave been caused through tbe negligence of tbe employees of tbe defendant city which resulted in plaintiff’s injury. Upon tbe trial tbe court sustained tbe defendant’s objection to receiving evidence under tbe complaint on tbe ground that tbe complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and ordered judgment against tbe plaintiff dismissing tbe complaint with costs. Judgment was entered accordingly, from which tbis appeal was taken.

. For tbe appellant there was a brief by *Lehr, Kiefer &*
      *481
      *Heilman,*attorneys, and *J. Elmer Lehr,*of counsel, and oral argument by *J. Elmer Lehr.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *Daniel W. Hoan,*city attorney, and *E. L. McIntyre,*assistant city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. McIntyre.*

KeewiN, J.

The facts are fully set out in the complaint, from which it appears that the injury complained of was caused by the negligence of an employee of the defendant city while engaged in the department of fire and police alarm system of the defendant city, authorized by sec. 959 — ■ *46d,*Stats., in running' an automobile used in such service so negligently as to cause the injury set forth in the complaint.

The only question in the case is whether the defendant city is liable for injuries caused through the negligence of an employee of the defendant while engaged in performing the services alleged. There is no doubt but that the duties which the employee was performing for the defendant city at the time of the accident were public or governmental duties. It is settled by the decisions of this court that a city is not liable for the negligence of one in its employ while engaged in the performance of a public or governmental function. *Hayes v. Oshkosh,*33 Wis. 314; *Manske v. Milwaukee,*123 Wis. 172, 101 N. W. 377; *Kuehn v. Milwaukee,*92 Wis. 263, 65 N. W. 1030; *Higgins v. Superior,*134 Wis. 264, 114 N. W. 490; *Kempster v. Milwaukee,*103 Wis. 421, 79 N. W. 411; *Folk v. Milwaukee,*108 Wis. 359, 84 N. W. 420; *Liermann v. Milwaukee,*132 Wis. 628, 113 N. W. 65.

The facts alleged in the complaint bring the present case within the rule of the foregoing decisions, therefore the complaint states no cause of action.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is affirmed.