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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2108 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for an extension 

of certain long-term care hospital payment rules and the moratorium 

on the establishment of certain hospitals and facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. BENNET) 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 an extension of certain long-term care hospital payment rules and the moratorium on the establishment 

of certain hospitals and facilities. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Patient Ac5 cess to Post-Acute Hospital Care Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2108 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN LTCH PAYMENT RULES 

2 AND MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT 

3 OF CERTAIN HOSPITALS AND FACILITIES. 

4 (a) EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PAYMENT RULES.— 

5 (1) PAYMENT FOR HOSPITALS-WITHIN-HOS6 PITALS.—Paragraph (2)(C) of section 114(c) of the 

7 Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 

8 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by sec9 tions 3106(a) and 10312(a) of Public Law 111–148 

10 and section 1206(b)(1)(A) of the Pathway for SGR 

11 Reform Act of 2013 (division B of Public Law 113– 

12 67), is amended by striking ‘‘for a 9-year period’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘and before October 1, 2018’’. 

14 (2) 25 PERCENT PATIENT THRESHOLD PAY15 MENT ADJUSTMENT.—Section 114(c)(1)(A) of the 

16 Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 

17 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by sec18 tions 3106(a) and 10312(a) of Public Law 111–148 

19 and section 1206(b)(1)(B) of the Pathway for SGR 

20 Reform Act of 2013 (division B of Public Law 113– 

21 67), is amended by striking ‘‘for a 9-year period’’ 

22 and inserting ‘‘and before October 1, 2018’’. 

23 (b) EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON ESTABLISH24 MENT OF AND INCREASE IN BEDS FOR LTCHS.—Section 

25 114(d) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension 

26 Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), as amended by 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2108 IS

1 sections 3106(b) and 10312(b) of Public Law 111–148, 

2 section 1206(b)(2) of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act 

3 of 2013 (division B of Public Law 113–67), and section 

4 112 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 

5 (Public Law 113–93), is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding 

7 subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘September 30, 

8 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2019’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘September 

10 30, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2019’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-.... . ~ .. • •• -• • ~- • • • • •-- I ....: .. 

REF ID:A104696 

KilfORANOOJf 1'0Ri 

You are hereby assigned to develo~ ia~rovemcnt in arts of value 

to the Chiet Signal Oxticer, dur11lt,' the period ot yoa:r aasicmaent to duty 

in the o.f'fice ot the Chief Signal Otticer. 

It is a:x:pect~d thst this work !lily result in tho diaeovery or 

patent•bl• teatur&s, •nd your a•&if!lllent to this work ia for the particular 

purpose ot vostiD.£ in the Onited States all right. title and intere•t to 

UJ invention ths.t you u,y mako while Cll£:.t.ged 1n the work "•s1ine:i_, it in 

·the opinion of th& Chief Sign~l Officer the pi~blic interest dc:i-inda that 

the inTention be owneJ and controlled b1 the lar Def)art~ent. 

jcceptance or aes1gn~ent to this •ork will constitute an agrecm.ont 

OD your .;;&rt to CXeCut& the- P~PerS re:~uired tor co..,lete assigtu1.ent of AZQ'" 

aucb inT~ntion to the United States in case tho Chier Signal Otficer decides 

that tha 1uv6nt1on ahould r~mo.ln secret, or to execute ~e p!'lpers necesaary 

£or -.~kint ap?lic~ti?n ror patent •nd the aasignment ot thb patent to the 

Uaitecl Stat.ea if •ecrecy is not neecasa17 or is neeesaa.:ey only for a 11a1ted 

tU.e. Ih the c:ase or nn in•ention which the Chief S!gn~l Otf iaer decides 

should remain eec~et acceptance or this a•eigD1Dent aloo const1tutea an 

acreesent on 7aur part that 70~ will not disclose th& 1nv~ntion to _ 'lUC1Uthor1ied per::Jon1 until euch. tai:. •• you are 1n!'oraed in wr1t1nc by the 

Chia! ~1gnn.l Otticer, or by his order, tbst the need !or secreoy lvls ccaued. 

The as1d.gnat";nt of' the inv~nt.ion to the United States aust bo 

dratted in form to comply with ra~u1rc:aents o! l"-• relatint to pa.tent 

ap;lications conine under this cate&or.r; but amch assigDZ1ent or lnstru11ent 

ot tr~nsfer 118.y in a pro~er c~so include suitable reaorvatione to enAble yo~ to ret~ln or re~os~ess Tour co!ll.~ercial riehts, in •hole or in part, 

1r and when the need tor 1ecre~y ceases to exist. 

Thia notice 0£ asslg!lllcnt to develo~ 1-prove~ents in art• of Y&lue 

to the Sign~l Cor;ia lh!~ll not bo construed as diTestinf you of :>Wnership 

of an:y inTention =~de by you while e~aged on this work, other th~n those 

which in tho o~inion of the Chier si.n~l orr1ce1· should b~ owned and 

oontrolled by th~ l~r Departaent to 1ateiu~rd the public interest, axce~t 

that the United states shnll bE entitled to a non-exclueiTe licenBe to an;y 

e.nd. all inventions IBP.de by ;You in the course or t.ho •o:rk aai.Jign.ed in the 

n:Ae •q aa 1l this spiSclsl a11.tlgmscnt had not be..;;n 11:.de. . . 

BJ'" order o! the Chier 31€n~l 0rr1oer1 

(sigred) DAWS.El OLMSTL.AD 

J.-a:eeutiT~ Offic~r 

1. I here'b.r aeee~t a.asi~ienl t'.> work under t.h.c aonditi.ona 1ct forth 

in ba.~ic coi::annicati~n. 

.. 

j -- .. ·a :71 r Bii:r_ .... __ -, · · .. 1 

. 1r- ·--- ._,_,._, .. ,., .. =···--·----- .. -· ... -"--. ---· ·-·- ._......,_ ---·-·-·---· ·-· ._) __ 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-18-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
#### Rogers, Respondent, vs. Shove and wife, Appellants: Schuette and another, Interveners.

*December 14, 1897*—

January *11, 1898,*

*Appeal: Notice: Adverse parties.*

On appeal by a mortgagor from an order confirming á sheriff’s report of sale on foreclosure, the purchaser is the principal adverse party, and must bo served with the notice of appeal, under sec. 3049, R. S.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Manito-woc county: N. S. Gilsoh, Circuit Judge. The interveners 'moved to dismiss the appeal.

*Motion granted.*

*J. 8.*Anderson, fbr the motion.

[No appearance for the appellants.]

Pee CueiaM.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order confirming a sheriff’s report of sale in foreclosure. *272The appeal was taken by the defendants *Shove,*the mortgagors, by serving the notice of appeal and bond upon the plaintiff in the action, only, and not upon the defendants *Sehuette,*who were the purchasers upon the sale, and who appeared by attorney in the court below upon the motion to confirm the report. This motion is made by the purchasers at the foreclosure sale, on the ground that the appeal papers should also have been served upon them or their attorney.

The point is unquestionably well taken. The purchaser ■of real estate at foreclosure sale becomes a *quasi*party to the action, so far as the proceedings to confirm the sale are ■concerned, and may appeal from orders affecting his right to such confirmation. *Ward v. Clark,*6 Wis. 509; *Kneeland v. Am. L. & T. Co.*136 U. S. 89. Upon all motions affecting that right, he is undoubtedly “the adverse party;” and, if he has the right to appeal from orders denying confirmation, the converse naturally follows, namely, that he is entitled to service of the notice of appeal from the order of confirmation when such appeal is taken by other parties. The statute provides that an appeal is to be taken by serving the notice of appeal “ on the adverse party,” and on the clerk of the court. R. S. sec. 3049. In case of such an appeal as the one before us, the purchaser is unquestionably the principal *“*adverse party,” and must be served with the notice. *Barnes v. Stoughton,*6 Hun, 254.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2115

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of 
    individuals from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual 
                    orientation or gender identity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 17, 2021

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Whitehouse, 
Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Markey, and Ms. Cortez Masto) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of 
    individuals from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual 
                    orientation or gender identity.

    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 ``Jury Access for Capable Citizens and 
Equality in Service Selection Act of 2021'' or the ``Jury ACCESS Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION 
              OR GENDER IDENTITY PROHIBITED.

    Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``sexual orientation, gender identity,'' after ``sex,''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000352162
<NAME> NORTHEAST INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        16,299,970
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      27,766
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  191,084
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              19,012,067
<CASH>                                       2,493,247
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           4,308,222
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         245,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,057,436
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             16,607,769
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          5,855,649
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     3,002,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,057,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,057,436
<PREMIUMS>                                   3,457,668
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            518,260
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              70,730
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                   2,457,206
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,255,299
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                334,153
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            327,470
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   327,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        




</TABLE>
Exhibit 31 (a)





CEO CERTIFICATIONS



I, Gary R. Kabureck, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Xerox Credit
Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



(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) 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



(c) 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



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(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.



August 12, 2003



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/S/    GARY R. KABURECK                     
|Gary R. Kabureck Principal Executive Officer
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Feneli.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Feneli*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 102.]

(No. 98-2664

Submitted April 14, 1999

Decided July 7, 1999.)

*103
      *Virginia S. Brown, Thomas A. Gattozzi*and *Cathleen M. Bolek,*for relator.

*Richard S. Koblentz*and *Craig J. Morice,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. There is no dispute that at the meeting in the client’s apartment respondent proposed to reduce the fees owed to him in exchange for certain sexual acts. Whether the client or respondent initiated the discussion that resulted in the September 7, 1995 meeting is immaterial. Despite respondent’s contention that the attorney-client relationship terminated two weeks earlier in August 1995, we cannot ignore the proximity of the two events.

We adhere to our statement in *Disciplinary Counsel v. Booher*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 509, 510, 664 N.E.2d 522, that “the burden is on the lawyer to ensure that all attorney-client dealings remain on a professional level.” From the outset of his representation, respondent did not meet that burden; instead, he engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on his ability to practice law.

Although we adopt the recommendation of the board regarding the suspension of respondent from the practice of law in Ohio, we do not adopt its recommendation that respondent complete a program for sex offenders. The board specifical*104ly did “not find clear and convincing evidence of an ongoing course of abuse and harassment of [the client] by Respondent.” Moreover, the respondent was not criminally prosecuted for a sexual offense or sexual harassment and he settled the client’s civil claim.

The purpose of disciplinary actions is not to punish but to determine whether a person, “ ‘formerly admitted [to the bar], is a proper person to be continued on the roll.’ ” *Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 369, 372, 667 N.E.2d 1186, 1188. In a case with facts similar to these, but with no sexual relations between the attorney and client, we imposed a six-month suspension, *Dayton Bar Assn. v. Sams*(1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 11, 535 N.E.2d 298. In this case we hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law in Ohio for eighteen months with the final six months of the suspension stayed. Costs are taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Robert W. Cinque, Appellant, v Ernest G. Schieferstein, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 813]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 27, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, awarded defendant $8,079.55 as the reasonable value of legal services rendered in responding to a prior appeal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award of costs for the prior appeal (292 AD2d 197 [2002]), under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, was not merely for defending an award of sanctions, but also for preserving the dismissal of plaintiff’s baseless action *(compare Henriques v Boitano,*304 AD2d 467 [2003]).

We have considered the parties’ other contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          56,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,211,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                   284,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,595,204
<PP&E>                                       1,010,125
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,160,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,301,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,504,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,764
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       122,857
<OTHER-SE>                                     379,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,301,242
<SALES>                                      8,387,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,387,052
<CGS>                                        2,574,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,885,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              86,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,498,712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,498,712)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)
        

</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2155 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 

coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2015 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MERKLEY, 

Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

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 ‘‘West Coast Ocean Pro5 tection Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2155 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE 

2 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE COAST 

3 OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue a 

11 lease for the exploration, development, or production of 

12 oil or natural gas in any area of the outer Continental 

13 Shelf off the coast of the State of California, Oregon, or 

14 Washington.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
roved for Release b NS 

1 NAME OR TITLE INITIALS CIRCULATE 

2 

3 

4 

Ml:t Fried.man ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

S/Asst 

DATE COORDINATlOll 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY ACTION 

NOTE AND RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

REMARKS 

Relative to Dualex teleg:n:aph equipment, 

several patents have issued rather recently 

to Durkee. These have been ordered, and will 

be forwarded as soon as obtained. 

No patents in this art have issued in 

late years - unless so late as not yet to be 

indexed - to anyone named Gravett. 

I have checked with Mr. Dingley. He has 

no more inf'orma.tion than appeared in h:f.s note to y u, 

but feels it possible (on reflection) that Gravett 

is concerned with Dualex. in some other fashion 

than as inventor. 

ORGANIZATIOll AND LOCATION 

NSS 

DD FORM 95 ReplacesDA.A.GOForm89S,1A.pr48,Bnd.A.FRQ I FEB llD Form 12, 10 Nov 4'7, which DlaJ' tie Wllld.
Order entered May 23 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 00289 - CR LEONARD MORNES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicia l District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F - 1575949 - S



### O RDER Appellant’s May 21, 2018 motion to extend the time for filing a reply brief is GRANTED . Appellant’s reply brief, received on May 17, 2018, is ORDERED filed as of the date of t his order.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES PRESIDING JUSTICE