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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2144 

To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support specialists in the 

furnishing of behavioral health integration services under the Medicare 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To clarify the eligibility for participation of peer support 

specialists in the furnishing of behavioral health integration services under the Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Promoting Effective 

5 and Empowering Recovery Services in Medicare Act of 

6 2021’’ or the ‘‘PEERS Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2144 IS

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION 

2 OF PEER SUPPORT SPECIALISTS IN THE FUR3 NISHING OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INTEGRA4 TION SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PRO5 GRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in title XVIII of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall be con8 strued as prohibiting a peer support specialist (as defined 

9 in subsection (b)) from participating in the furnishing of 

10 behavioral health integration services under such title 

11 under the supervision of a physician or other entity billing 

12 for such services under such title. 

13 (b) PEER SUPPORT SPECIALIST DEFINED.—For pur14 poses of subsection (a), the term ‘‘peer support specialist’’ 

15 means an individual who— 

16 (1) is recovering from a mental health or sub17 stance use condition; and 

18 (2) is certified as qualified to furnish peer sup19 port services under a certification process consistent 

20 with the National Practice Guidelines for Peer Sup21 porters and inclusive of the Substance Abuse and 

22 Mental Health Services Administration Core Com23 petencies for Peer Workers in Behavioral Health 

24 Settings (as established by the State in which such 

25 individual furnishes such services or under such naVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:38 Jun 25, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2144.IS S2144

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2144 IS

1 tional certification process determined appropriate 

2 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
REF D:AJOB19 --- - -l~ 

( 

r COPY BEADQUARTERS• ARMY SBRVICB FORCES 

OPPICE OF ~ CHIEF SIGHAL Ol'PICBR 

- --,- Washington 25. l> C - SPSLG-3 - - 10 June 1946 

- ---=~ -- - , ,Jlr ~~---=--=1-<. ---:.. - .::::-:: - ~~/ 

Ill' W1111.&m ~ Friedman fl 

Army Secur1t7 Agenc7 J. /;Yi 4 ~ Washington., D C 11.A .. //'~ 

Dear Mr Friedman Y" 

In reapon there are transmitted hereVi th excerpts om the minutes ot the Signal Corps Patent Board. 

Jleeting No }2, September 2,, 1941, torming part ot the record ot 

7our Cl'J'Ptogl'&ph1c invention, Serial Number 44,,,20 1 tiled lfa7 16~ 

1942~ in ~he namea o~ 'W1111am F Priedman and Frank B Rowlett 

You have also aaked ~or 11fT opinion, as the pa.tent attorney 

tor the Signal Corps at the time tM.s app11cation vaa tiled, aa to 

the rights ot the two joint inventors in thia application 

Ai 850-501 as 1t ex1ated at the time the invention vaa made 

and also at the time the application tor patent was tiled, established tbl-ee ca.tegor1ea The regulation provided tbat inventions made aa a result of apecitic aaa1gmnenta to invent became 

the propet7 ot the Government ~bat this vaa not the caae 1n 

regard to 7our invention. 1• indicated 1n Paragraph ' !!. ot the 

Patent Board•a action, Yhich states that •there Y&a no apecitic designation to 1nvent the things described n Pu?asuant to this 

tinding ot the Patent Board, which was approved by the Acting Ohiet 

Signal O~ficer. 7ou and Mr Rowlett vere not aaked to assign the 

entire right to the invention, but vere asked to give the socalled revera1ona17 aaa1gnm.ent !'he lAtter provides that the ap- plication 1• the propert7 ot the Government ror procedural purpo••• until a notice ot allovance 1• issued b7 the Patent Ott1c•. at 

which t1me the entire right, title and interest reverts to the 

1nventozas subject to a non-exclusive license to the Govermnent ~his is be11eved to be in accordance not on.17 vith the A.1!llfJ Begula- tion AR 850-50, but a1ao With the patent agreement Yh1ch 7ou signed 

1n April 19,6, vh1ch merel7 provided ~or reveraiona197 assignments 1n caaea Where there vaa no apec1r1c aaatgmnent to in.vent the 

apec11'1o device 1n question and where the invention waa to be kept 

secret 

pp roved for Release by NSA on 08-30-2013 pursuant 

o E.O. 13526 

l Incl 

Excerpts ot Jleeting lo :52 - -- - ---

Yours ver7 ti-uli. 

/s/ William D Ball 

WILLIAM D BALL 

Patenta & Invention• Counsel 

Legal Division 

;<- -_ 

..... ~ = 

-=-=I .... -:... - - -

--,rt" 

L-.--

~=CC~
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00371

- CV

Veronica CUELLAR and Eduardo Cisneros,

Appellants

v.

Sunita PUNJABI, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV02244 Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an appeal in a forcible detainer action in which the clerk’s record shows the
county court at law signed a default judgment of possession in favor of appellee on August 25, 2021. The clerk’s record also shows the county clerk subsequently issued a writ of possession to enforce the judgment. The supplemental clerk’s record shows the writ of possession was executed and the property was “turned over to [appellee]” on September 10, 2021. Neither the clerk’s record nor the supplemental clerk’s record shows that appellants requested or paid a bond to supersede the judgment. See T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE A N N

. § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”).

The onl y issue in a forcible detainer action is the right to actual possession of the
property. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.3( e); Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of the City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex. 2006); see also T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE A NN

. §§ 24.001

– .002. A judg ment of possession in such an action determines only the right to immediate possession and is not a final determination of whether an eviction is wrongful. Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 787. When an appellant fails to file a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the county court at law, the judgment may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed, evicting the defendant from the property. See T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE § 24.007; T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 510.13; Marshall , 198 S.W.3d
at 786. If a forcible detainer defendant f ails to supersede the judgment and loses possession of the property, the appeal is moot unless the forcible detainer defendant (1) timely and clearly expressed his intent to appeal and (2) asserted “a potentially meritorious claim of right to current,

actu al possession of the [property].” See Marshall , 198 S.W.3d at 786

– 87.Because the record appears to show that appellants did not request or pay a supersedeas

bond, that the writ of execution was subsequently executed, and that appellee has ta ken possession of the property, this appeal may be moot. We therefore ORDER appellants to file a written response by October 21, 2021 explaining: (1) whether the writ of possession was executed; and (2) why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.

All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of October, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31


CERTIFICATIONSrequired by Rules 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)


I, Charles E. Ayers, Jr., certify that:
				1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10‐QSB of Unioil, the issuer;
				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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;
				4. As the issuer's only certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and 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 issuer, 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 issuer'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 issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and            August 18, 2006 /s/ Charles E. Ayers, Jr.
First Amendment to the Employment Agreement--Varney


 Exhibit 10.123 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment to
Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of August 2, 2011 (the “Effective Date”), between Mark A. Varney, Ph.D. (the “Executive”) and Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”).

 RECITALS 
 On December 19, 2008, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”). 
 The Executive is serving as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, and the parties wish to amend the Agreement pursuant to the terms and
conditions set forth below. 
 AGREEMENT 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows effective as of the Effective Date. Except as otherwise defined herein,
capitalized terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement. 
 1. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be
amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “Term. The term of this Agreement shall expire on August 13,
2014, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or otherwise extended by mutual agreement of the Company’s Board of Directors and the Executive.” 

2. Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. 

 

			
	EXECUTIVE
	
	       /s/ Mark A.
Varney

	Mark A. Varney, Ph.D.
	
	CORTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	       /s/ Roger G. Stoll

		 	Roger G. Stoll, Ph.D.
	Its:	 	Executive Chairman
Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Joel F. Gemunder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Omnicare, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                        

Date: October 30, 2008



/s/ Joel F. GemunderJoel F. GemunderPresident and Chief Executive Officer






---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                    ------------



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated February 17, 1999 relating to the
financial statements, which appears in the 1998 Annual Report to Shareholders
of First Costal Corporation, which is incorporated by reference in First
Coastal Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1998.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Portland, Maine
May 27, 1999
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 22, 2019

No. 04-18-00747-CV

Marcelo GALVAN Jr. and Analicia R. Galvan,

Appellants

v.

Cledson Macedo de CARVALHO, Kristina Carvalho and Jagaland Co., LLC,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVH001835-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellants’ second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Time is extended to April 29, 2019.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHEUKMA KENYATA SANDERS, a/k/a Kuma,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-CH-13; 5:09-cv00135-RLV)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheukma Kenyata Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cheukma Kenyata Sanders seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.*

 * We decline to consider Sanders’ claim, raised for the 

first time in this court, that the district court applied the 

Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and counsel failed 

to object. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 

1993).

 We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Doc ID: 4245692
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Environmetal Protection Agency

          - [FRL-9924-53-Region-5]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice; request for public comment.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,                               ( print page 13852)                            Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Shaw Road Drum Site in Clyde, Ohio with the settling party: Lamar M. Durst Sr. Estate. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $50,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is an appropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. EPA Record Center, Room 714 U.S. EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois.                    

# DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before April 16, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Cathleen R. Martwick, Associate Regional Counsel, EPA Region 5, Office of Regional Counsel, C-14J, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; telephone number (312) 886-7166; fax number (312) 697-2060; email address:                         *martwick.cathleen@epa.gov.*

Dated: March 9, 2015.

Doug Ballotti, 

Acting Director, Superfund Division, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 2015-06113 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
REF ID :_A2436073 

.l!Jl-0.P~~WI, --~'taft_ ,Dll\4,~ 

sun..t~~CT: SQM. 

sci~ =-~R~~~:mir.-=~,w·· 9,,. 'Ibo ~1t1ilh ba.V• 1lld1tutt•d ti<> • l'roi:1 tl• t-o 
REF ID:A2436073 

ll 'UJ:..sJ[~;i(}'.i a f"-ll ,~ 

·····~·~~-·····-···~····~·-~~·-

... · .. .. .. •• ... .. .. . $uh a $0WM f//>f' ant !t.U:l 'tln~a have lbe 1\Jllo'•lAi advantag•I t 

a. ;!~fti,.:•;;::.l~ .• ~::f:!_:,1:n:~,C'T1e;f . 

.. ~l[;!l~~;r~: 

.ai'b·lil!f)tl!:,flftcMPJtt\7 DI.~ p.~ 'tbifa 

'· !:,a::t4·<>,r:= ;:: !:i'n.rt.~~;,:: •oh.1n•• 

····:·. ·::."·;:.;.;,;, ... ,.;:c.,_'.'~·::.\·.-... ,., ·:::.::~·~·:."·:..,·,.. :·:·::;.:;.::;,::,, •.. ··:~··:·"'·'·~·:;~'ii'····:··:::.,:: ... ····· •'.',",\",,.:,; ... , ... :,·.;.:·;".\''u'·O"i'····~·~.c·iiW . .'/,iiU:.'··.:·~:.::: :.,.,... '.'.''."'.'.'.'.'·\'."~·u.i'•••··:=·:::·::;.,;, ..... _.".::;,.·:..,·.;;;;;,,~··'-""'''""~•• .. u•••••"''''' ···:.:.:....:.:, ... ,,.,,,,, : ··-~• .. •''''' ·--··••• ... ,.,,,.
REF ID:A53616 

NJ\V SECS TA \<tAt H DC 

15 OCTOBER 1951/TJT f'61JFROM: SACEUR PARIS FRANCE 

FR SIGNAL DIV 1216¢4Z ROUTINE 

TO: SECY STDG GP NATO WASHDC NCC 474 

MOL LONLON ENGLAND/MOD PARIS 

FRANCE/MOL ROME ITALY/MOD THE S 43423 

HAGUE NETHERLANDS/MOD BRUSSELS 

BELGIUM/MOD COPENHAGEN L~NMARK/ NH SH 21467 ~.JL OSLb NORv,AY /t>ECLONST AN LJNDON 

ENGLAND/CiNCLANDCf:NT FJNTAINBLEAU :P.A HI ''i.3f 

FRANCEiblNCAIRCENT FONTAJNBLEAU 

FRANCE/FLAGCENT FONTAINBLEAU FRANCE/ CINCNO~TH OSLO NORWAYLCINCSOUTH NAPLES 

ITALY/ASG ATHENS GREECE/ALL NMRS (SHAPE) 

INFO: AIR MINISTRY LONLON ENGLA~D 

0 E=C=R-E-T SECRET l 

SHAPTO 153. THIS IS A NATO MESSAGEe 

SHAPE AND ST AND I NG GROUP N8~1 H1\VE COMMON COSMIC AND 

NATO CRYPTO SYSTEM ~ITH US MISSION, ATH~NS, GREECE. 

ARMY RO UT I NG: 

ACTION: ~GN 

I NF Q: Si G, JCS ( JCEC) , G2, CC, AF S1,, 11F , NAVY. 

NCC ROU 11 l'JG: 

2r/J2. o l'COG ¢3 •• c~02 •• o2¢3T3o•o2¢ FILE.~. 

NAVSECSTA ROUTING: 

INFO: AFSA ./A OP-2¢2R _ _... 

AF SA ~ ~ A __ 11 131 __ ,.0 P-2¢•2___.,~,2 ¢ 2 T 3_,,,.,.,,..... 

PARAPHRASE NOT RE~UIRE~. 

CONSULT CRYPTOCENTEh BEFORE DECLASSIFYING. 

1216t4Z JCT 51 SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-04-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a