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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6366 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect to the work 

geographic index for physician payments under the Medicare program, 

and to revise the phase-in of clinical laboratory test payment changes 

under such program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. HUDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act with respect 

to the work geographic index for physician payments 

under the Medicare program, and to revise the phasein of clinical laboratory test payment changes under such 

program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6366 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENDING FLOOR FOR WORK GEOGRAPHIC 

2 INDEX. 

3 Section 1848(e)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395w–4(e)(1)(E)) is amended by striking ‘‘2024’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REVISING PHASE-IN OF MEDICARE CLINICAL LAB7 ORATORY TEST PAYMENT CHANGES. 

8 (a) REVISED PHASE-IN OF REDUCTIONS FROM PRI9 VATE PAYOR RATE IMPLEMENTATION.—Section 

10 1834A(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

11 1395m–1(b)(3)) is amended— 

12 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘2026’’ 

13 and inserting ‘‘2027’’; and 

14 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

15 (A) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘2023’’ and 

16 inserting ‘‘2024’’; and 

17 (B) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘2024 

18 through 2026’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 

19 2027’’. 

20 (b) REVISED REPORTING PERIOD FOR REPORTING

21 OF PRIVATE SECTOR PAYMENT RATES FOR ESTABLISH22 MENT OF MEDICARE PAYMENT RATES.—Section 

23 1834A(a)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

24 1395m–1(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 

25 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘2023’’ and insert26 ing ‘‘2024’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6366 IH

1 (2) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘2024’’ each place 

2 it appears and inserting ‘‘2025’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-158520, 333-156983, 333-153333, 333-152245, 333-142229, 333-124354, 333-102082, 333-88770, 333-88730, 333-30088, 333-88811, 333-48260,333-52644, 333-75736 and 333-111548) of TIBCO Software Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2009 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

San Jose, California 

January 29, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 10, 2013

s0507 

# Order

May 10, 2013

146965

SC: 146965

In re BROCKITT, Minors

. COA: 311097

Sanilac CC Family Division:

11

- 035529

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 14, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130118 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130118 

 COA: 265211 

Saginaw CC: 97-013761-FH 

RYAN LANELL McCRAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-K/A
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 Commission file number: 001-31783
 RAE Systems Inc.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    77-0280662(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)3775 North First Street San Jose, California
    
    95134(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 408-952-8200
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of Each Class
    
    Name of Each Exchange on Which RegisteredCommon Stock, $0.001 par value per share
    
    NYSE Alternext US
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
    
    Smaller reporting company o
 o þ
  DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  RAE SYSTEMS INC.By:
    /s/  Robert I. ChenRobert I. ChenPresident and Chief Executive Officer KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS
  Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Robert I. Chen

Robert I. Chen
    
    President, Chief Executive
Officer and 
Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    December 21, 2009/s/ Randall Gausman

Randall Gausman
    
    Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
    
    December 21, 2009/s/ Peter C. Hsi

Peter C. Hsi
    
    Chief Technology Officer, Vice President
of Emerging Technologies Development
and Director
    
    December 21, 2009/s/
Lyle D. Feisel by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact

Lyle D. Feisel by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact
    
    Director
    
    December 21, 2009/s/ Sigrun Hjelmqvist by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact

Sigrun Hjelmqvist by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact
    
    Director
    
    December 21, 2009DirectorKeh-Shew Lu/s/ James W. Power by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact

James W. Power by Randall Gausman, attorney-in-fact
    
    Director
    
    December 21, 2009DirectorSusan Wang
 -2-
Marcel A. WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3203

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

Marcel A. Wright, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Levine, Conner, and Forst, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific 
Counselors, NIDCD.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National 
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, including 
consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the 
competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDCD.
    Date: March 30, 2022.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate staff reports on divisional, 
programmatical, and special activities.
    Place: Porter Neuroscience Research Center, Building 35A, 35 
Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lisa L. Cunningham, Ph.D., Scientific Director, 
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 35A Convent Drive, Rockville, MD 
20850, 301-443-2766, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfb3b6acbef1bcaab1b1b6b1b8b7beb29fb1b6b7f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2cecbd1c38cc1d7cccccbccc5cac3cfe2cccbca8cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/about/advisory-committees, where an 
agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted 
when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03311 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jean Cenatus, Appellant, v Herman Rosen et al., Respondents.

[771 NYS2d 179]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated December 5, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff claims that he sustained, inter alia, a significant limitation of his cervical and lumbosacral spine as the result of *547an accident which occurred on August 26, 1998, when he was 18 years old. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs injuries “do not satisfy the threshold requirement of a serious injury” under any definition set forth in Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

In support of their motion, the defendants’ experts noted that a magnetic resonance imaging of the plaintiffs back revealed a herniated disc in the lumbosacral spine and two herniated discs in the cervical spine. After examining the plaintiff, one of the defendants’ examining physicians concluded that the plaintiff demonstrated a “full range of motion . . . throughout the spinal column” and diagnosed his injury as cervical and lumbar sprains which had resolved. Accordingly, the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment in their favor.

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation from a physician who performed a recent examination of the plaintiff. The physician quantified the results with percentages of the loss of range of motion of the cervical and lumbosacral spine.

In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff established that there is an issue of fact as to whether he sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 353 [2002]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Director Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.4 
 ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 Director Compensation Arrangements

 Effective January 2, 2012 and until further modified by the Board of Directors of ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Corporation”), the Corporation’s non-employee directors will receive the compensation set forth below. Non-employee directors do not receive any other compensation for service on the Board of Directors or its committees, other
than reimbursement of reasonable expenses. Directors who are also employees of the Corporation do not receive any additional compensation for their service on the Board of Directors. All equity awards are granted under the Corporation’s
2006 Long Term Incentive Plan, as amended. 
 Upon initial appointment to the Board of Directors, the director will receive a one-time grant of
40,000 stock options, which will vest over three years in equal amounts on first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant. The options will have a term of ten years. The exercise price for such options will be the closing price of the
Corporation’s common stock as quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on the date of grant. 
 Each year, the directors will receive
annual cash compensation of $50,000, paid in equal quarterly amounts on or about the last day of each calendar quarter. In lieu of cash, a director may elect to receive the equivalent value in restricted shares of the Corporation’s common stock
on January 31, subject to a lapsing repurchase right as described below. The number of shares will be determined based on the volume weighted average price (VWAP) of the Corporation’s common stock for the month of December of the prior
year. Such election will be made by January 15 of each calendar year. 
 Each year, the directors will receive an annual equity grant of
14,000 restricted shares of the Corporation’s common stock to be issued on January 31, subject to a lapsing repurchase right as described below. The number of restricted shares to be awarded will be evaluated annually to take into account
the underlying value of the shares. 
 The lapsing repurchase right will give the Corporation the right to repurchase the shares for a nominal
amount if the individual ceases to be a member of the Board of Directors or ceases to provide agreed upon services to the Corporation following their service as a director. The right will lapse as to 25% of the shares on
March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 of the year of the award. 
 The Board of Directors has adopted
stock ownership guidelines, to be phased in over five years, for the non-employee directors and the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer. The guideline for the non-employee directors is ownership of the Corporation’s common stock with a
value of at least three times the annual cash compensation and the guideline for the Chief Executive Officer is ownership of the Corporation’s common stock with a value of at least six times his base salary.
Eric ELLINGTON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2499

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 28, 2017

Following review of the petition alleging ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4507

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROLAND L. MAYS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-05-30)

Submitted: October 28, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial before a magistrate judge, Roland

Mays was convicted of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing,

impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a military police

officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West Supp. 2005) (Count

1); communicating a threat, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13 (2000),

assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.1 (1993) (Count 3); and

resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223 (1993)

(Count 4). The magistrate judge sentenced Mays to twelve months on

Count 1, a consecutive four months on Count 3, and a concurrent

sixty days on Count 4. Mays appealed to the district court,

challenging the magistrate judge's imposition of a consecutive

sentence on Count 3. The district court affirmed Mays' sentence

and Mays timely appealed. We find no error in the district court's

order affirming the sentence imposed by the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Mays, No. CR-05-30 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 1,

2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.40





 Exhibit 10.40 

FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE

 FIFTH THIRD BANCORP EXECUTIVE CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN 

(Effective January 1, 2015) 

Pursuant to the reserved power of amendment contained in Section 10.1 of the Fifth Third Bancorp Executive Change in Control Severance
Plan, effective January 1, 2015 (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended effective December 17, 2018 in the following respects: 

1.    Section 2.5 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read: 

“2.5    “Change in Control” shall be deemed to have occurred if the conditions set forth in any one
of the following paragraphs shall have been satisfied: 
 (a)    any person (as such term is used in Sections 13(d) and
14(d) of the Exchange Act) (other than a trustee or other fiduciary holding securities under an employee benefit plan of the Company or a corporation owned directly or indirectly by the common shareholders of the Company in substantially the same
proportions as their ownership of stock of the Company), is or becomes the beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company representing thirty percent (30%) or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s
then-outstanding securities; or 
 (b)    during any period of twelve (12) consecutive months (not including any
period prior to the Effective Date), individuals who at the beginning of such period constitute the Board and any new director, whose election by the Board or nomination for election by the Company’s shareholders, was approved by a vote of at
least two-thirds (2/3) of the directors then still in office who either were directors at the beginning of the period or whose election or nomination for election was previously so approved, cease for any
reason to constitute a majority thereof; or 
 (c)    the consummation of (1) the sale or disposition of all or
substantially all the Company’s assets; or (2) a merger or consolidation of the Company with any other corporation, other than a merger or consolidation that would result in the voting securities of the Company outstanding immediately
prior thereto continuing to represent (either by remaining outstanding or by being converted into voting securities of the surviving entity), at least sixty percent (60%) of the combined voting power of the voting securities of the Company (or such
surviving entity) outstanding immediately after such merger or consolidation; or 
 (d)    the shareholders of the
Company approve a plan of complete liquidation of the Company.” 
 2.    Except as otherwise amended herein, the Plan shall
continue in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Fifth Third Bancorp has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized representative the 17th day of December, 2018. 
  

			
	FIFTH THIRD BANCORP
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert P. Shaffer

		 	Robert P. Shaffer, Chief Human Resources Officer, EVP
#### Randy T. DAVIS, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Denise GELSINGER; the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6142

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Randy T. Davis, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Randy T. Davis, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit jüstice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*