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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2173 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2173

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to 
           mental health services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 8, 2015

 Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Ms. Mikulski) 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 improve access to 
           mental health services under the Medicare program.

    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 ``Improving Access to Mental Health 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) Access to Clinical Social Workers.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) 
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended by 
striking ``75 percent of the amount determined for payment of a 
psychologist under clause (L)'' and inserting ``85 percent of the fee 
schedule amount provided under section 1848''.
    (b) Access to Clinical Social Worker Services Provided to Residents 
of Skilled Nursing Facilities.--
            (1) In general.--Section 1888(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social 
        Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395yy(e)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by 
        inserting ``clinical social worker services,'' after 
        ``qualified psychologist services,''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the 
        Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by 
        striking ``and other than services furnished to an inpatient of 
        a skilled nursing facility which the facility is required to 
        provide as a requirement for participation''.
    (c) Access to the Complete Set of Clinical Social Worker 
Services.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395x(hh)(2)) is further amended by striking ``for the diagnosis and 
treatment of mental illnesses (other than services'' and inserting 
``(including health behavior assessment and intervention (identified as 
of January 1, 2015, by HCPCS codes 96150 through 96155 (and any 
succeeding codes)), but not including services''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
Cite as 2016 Ark. 410

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Opinion Delivered November 17, 2016

IN RE CLIENT SECURITY

FUND COMMITTEE 

PER CURIAM

Ray Fulmer, Esq., of Fort Smith, Third Congressional District, is reappointed to the 

Client Security Fund Committee for a five-year term to expire on July 31, 2021. JoAnn 

Maxey, Esq., of Little Rock, Second Congressional District, is reappointed to the Client 

Security Fund Committee for a term to expire on July 31, 2017. The court expresses its 

gratitude to Mr. Fulmer and Ms. Maxey for accepting reappointment to this committee.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 18664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07073]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 349]

Delegation to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and 
International Security of Authority To Concur With the Secretary of 
Defense Authorization of Activities of the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State, 
including Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) (NDAA), and Section 1 of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and 
delegated to me by the Secretary of State in Delegation of Authority 
245-1, dated February 13, 2009, I hereby delegate to the Under 
Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, to the extent 
authorized by law, the authority to concur with a Secretary of Defense 
authorization that is made pursuant to Subsection 1211(c) of the NDAA.
    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the 
Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources 
may exercise any function or authority delegated by this Delegation. 
Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or 
delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such 
statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.
    The Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security 
may, to the extent consistent with law, redelegate such functions and 
authorities and authorize their successive redelegation.
    This delegation of authority shall be published in the Federal 
Register.

     Dated: February 22, 2013 .
William J. Burns,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-07073 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40527

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADONIS JONATHAN CRUZ-SOTO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-1291-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adonis Jonathan 

Cruz-Soto has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz-Soto has filed a response and has moved for the 

appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Cruz-Soto’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40527 Document: 00513763752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2016
No. 16-40527

2

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Cruz-Soto’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Cruz-Soto’s motion for appointment of new counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 16-40527 Document: 00513763752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2016
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2009-1088 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-76-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 65 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are to require appropriate operating limitations to allow operators 

to perform Class D external load-combination operations, including human external cargo, in this 

model helicopter that now meets the Category A performance standard.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $

Labor per Helicopter

(X x $85/work-hour)

$

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter minimal

Total US Fleet Cost minimal

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: John Coffey
S·ECRET .. i< co~Fln~Jiili:i-e~B7 3 RESTRICTED 

DATE__;20 ~C-~~7- TO FROM TO FROM 

_ C . , ASA ........... (10)_ 

' xecutive 0 ....... (11)_ 

~ )Co'r oint Oper ..... (12)_ 

~- e y Chief, ASA ... (20) 

ir, Comm Res .... (14) 

Ch, Pers Sec ....... (21~~ 

Ch, Org & Tng Sec .. (22) __ 

Ch, Plans & Oper .. :(23) __ 

Ch, Materiel Sec .... (24) __ 

Ch, Fiscal Sec ..... (25)_ 

Adjutant, ASA ..... (26) __ 

__ Ch, Security Div. . . . (80) _ 

Tech Staff ......... (81)_ 

Ch, Materiel Br .... (82)_ 

__ Ch, Methods Br .... (83) __ 

__ Ch, Protective Br. . (84) __ _ 

__ Ch, Maint Br ...... (85) _ __:_ 

_ Ch, Res & Dev Div .. (70) __ _ 

Tech Staff ......... (71) __ 

Ch, Ch. Ciph & Cif Br(72) __ 

Ch, Int Equip Br ... (73)_ 

Ch, Elec & Elec Br. (74) __ 

Ch, Sec Cont Sec ... (27)__ 1 _ Ch, Lab Serv Br ... (75) __ 

-·- Ch, Operations Div .. (90)_ Ch, C'logic Br ...... (76) __ 

Ch, Lab Br.' ....... (91) __ _ _Ch, Pers & Tng Br .... (61) __ 

Ch, Machine Br .... (92)_ _. _Ch, Supply Br ........ (62) __ 

Ch, Crypt Br ...... (93)_ _:__Co, Arlington Hall. ... (40) __ 

Ch, Int Cont Br .. : . (94)_ 

Ch, I & D Br ...... (95)_ 

Tech Staff ......... (96) __ 

( ) Approval & Return ( ) Information & File 

( ) As Requested ( ) Recommendation 

( ) Concurrence or Comments ( ) Signature if approved 

( ) Information & Forwarding ( ) Your action by 

( ) Information & Return ( ) info upon which to base reply 

, ~ 

~___(_L'L~ ... ""'-- J ~ f"" -- -M~ WDGAS FORM NO. -~- 96 (R.,,, 11) 

-Ctr_~__.J:.-~ 31 Oct 46 44412 ~ ~-

roved for Release b NSA on 07-1 -2014 ursuantto E.O. 135 
.r. ~.1f. ~~~4 

-~~~,0-d~~~ 

~~·
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

         I, Dr. George Rozakis,  Chief Executive Officer of Implantable  Vision,
Inc. (the "Registrant"),  do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
as adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,
based upon a review of the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
April 30, 2008 of the  Registrant,  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

         (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 the
Registrant.


                                          By: /s/George Rozakis
                                             ----------------------------------
                                          Name:      Dr. George Rozakis
                                          Title:     Chief Executive Officer

June 23, 2008

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

         This  certification  accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the  Registrant  for purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the  Registrant  and will be retained  by the  Registrant  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0604

_________________

CITY OF GREAT FALLS,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

JASON BRYAN MARTIN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Jason Bryan Martin, to all counsel of 

record, and to the Honorable John W. Parker, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 2 2020

12/02/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0604
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM XEROX 
CREDIT CORPORATION'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                       116
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,137
<BONDS>                                          3,352
<COMMON>                                            23
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         467
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,952
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   263
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     93
<INCOME-TAX>                                        38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 55
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        55
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0













        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 2315 Disciplinary Docket No. 3
Petitioner > No. 132 DB 2016

: Attorney Registration No. 312765
Vv. :

: (Out of State)
MEGAN McCARTHY CLARK :

Respondent

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17 day of November, 2016, upon consideration of the
Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint
Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is granted. Respondent Megan McCarthy
Clark is suspended on consent from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of six

months and she shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of CPAC, Inc. for the period ending June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000351717
<NAME> CPAC, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,131,702
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,607,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                   806,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,524,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,012,609
<PP&E>                                      34,710,571
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,974,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              76,104,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,110,078
<BONDS>                                      8,067,912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,959
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,246,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                76,104,890
<SALES>                                     26,479,554
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,479,554
<CGS>                                       15,079,212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,079,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,919,570
<INCOME-TAX>                                   784,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,135,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,135,570
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
r 

I~~ : ;' •( J .·. ··"<. 

COP~ 

SPSIB-3 

Frank B. Rowlett, Lt. Col., Sig. C. 

18 APRIL 1945 

FORT SHAFTER 

MAILING DATE OF TRAFFIC REQUESTED IN YOUR SID TWO NINE TWO RPT 

TWO NINE TWO WAS ELEVEN DECEMBER ONE NINE FOUR ONE PAREN CITE 

SPSIB DASH THREE FOR COLLINS FROM CORDERMAN PAREN RECEIVING 

OPERATORS SIGN DOES NOT APPEAR ON OUR INTERCEPT BUT LOG SHEET 

NUMBER ZERO ONE FOUR ZERO THREE SEVEN RPT ZERO ONE FOUR ZERO THREE 

SEVEN IS STAMPED ON TRAFFIC AND IS LISTED ON LOGS FORWARDED UNDER 

SIGNATURE OF C A POWELL PD ZERO SEVER ZERO SEVER RPT ZERO SEVEN ZERO 

SEVEN ON TWO DECEMBER ONE NINE FOUR ONE IS INTERCEPT TIME LISTED 

PLATTE 

In reply to CM-IN#290S9 

- \ ' . ' -\. , : ' l~ ~; .k 

!, : _;; ~. ~ . ~ -.',' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-07-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We have issued our report, dated December 20, 2002, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report
of SatCon Technology Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended September
30, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report
in the Registration Statements of SatCon Technology Corporation on Form S-8
(File Nos. 033-75934, 333-04280, 333-08047, 333-75339, 333-43802, 333-67504,
and 333-100753) and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-05939, 333-37921, 333-87157,
333-94859, 333-48936 and 333-67328).


                                  /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 20, 2002
report, Dr. Monroe responded to the questions contained in the appeals

officer's order and opined that he could not find, within a degree of reasonable medical probability, that Nortier's right ankle injury was causally related to her industrial injury. Because Nortier failed to bring her MRI of her left knee to the initial visit, Dr. Monroe also issued an addendum finding that her left knee injury was more consistent with arthritis rather than a work related injury.

The appeals officer ultimately denied Nortier's request to expand her worker's compensation claim to include her right ankle. The appeals officer relied on Dr. Monroe's two reports and addendum, finding the reports to be credible in showing Nortier had an extensive preexisting condition that was not aggravated by her industrial injury. Nortier filed a petition for judicial review that was denied by the district court. This appeal followed.

"Like the district court, we review an appeals officer's decision in a workers' compensation matter for• clear error or an abuse of discretion." 

### Vredenburg v. Sedgtvick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 (2008); 

### see NRS 233B.135(3). While the appeals officer's legal determinations are reviewed de novo, "the appeals officer's fact-based legal conclusions are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence." 

### Dickinson v. Am. Med. Response, 124 Nev. 460, 465-66, 186 P.3d 878, 882 (2008). Although the appeals officer misstated the findings in Dr. Monroe's addendum, 1substantial evidence

1 The appeals officer found that Dr. Monroe reviewed scans of Nortier's right ankle and that based off those scans, he determined that her right ankle condition was not related to the industrial injury. However, Dr. Monroe only reviewed an MRI scan of Nortier's left knee and 

### continued on next page...

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 

### (enonetheless supports the appeals officer's decision and order. Nortier's

medical records indicate three previous surgeries and medical attention to her right Achilles tendon dating back to 2003. Moreover, Nortier's medical records show a pattern of sudden onset Achilles tendon pain without any instance of trauma or injury. Finally, Dr. Monroe documented in his report that a previous surgeon noted in Nortier's medical record that the previous debridement surgeries made the right ankle prone to weakness and rerupture. 2 We therefore affirm the district court's order denying judicial review.

It is so ORDERED.


# teeA J. Hardesty



## ima J. Douglas

...continued determined that the injury to her left knee was not related to the industrial injury.

2 Nortier also argues that the reports of Dr. Monroe are contradictory, such that they cannot constitute substantial evidence. We conclude that this argument lacks merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A 4104.cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge Greenman Goldberg Baby & Martinez Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4
(0) 1947A ea