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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6310 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6310

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend incentive 
payments for participation in eligible alternative payment models under 
                         the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

   Mr. Ruiz 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 to extend incentive 
payments for participation in eligible alternative payment models 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. EXTENDING INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN ELIGIBLE 
              ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT MODELS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    Section 1833(z) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(z)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                    (A) by striking ``and ending with 2025'' and 
                inserting ``and ending with 2027''; and
                    (B) by striking ``with respect to 2025'' and 
                inserting ``with respect to each of years 2025 through 
                2027''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``with respect to 2025'' 
        and inserting ``with respect to each of years 2025 through 
        2027''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
      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)
    
    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 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;
andd)
    
    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 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 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:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Frank C. StipesFrank C. Stipes, Esq.Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer
#### AMERICAN SAMOA (by FANUA of Auasi), Plaintiff v. TUPU of Utumea, Defendant

Number unknown [Given No. 1A-1937  ]

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Siigavaa” and “Niusi” near Utumea]

Date unknown

A. A. MORROW, *Chief Justice*

This case involves the title to the land Siigavaa. The District Court has no jurisdiction concerning real property or rights concerning same—Sec. 3(21) of the Codification. There being no jurisdiction this case is dismissed.

The Chief Justice has examined the record in the case of *Saole & Togia v. Sagatu*in the High Court (No. 1-1919) in which case the title to the land Siigavaa and Niusi was involved. The decision in that case read as follows:

> “This case involves the title to lands Siigavaa and Niusi located near Utumea in the Eastern District of the Island of Tutuila, having come on to be heard before the High Court of American Samoa on the 14th day of February 1931.

Present American Judge H. P. Wood and Native Judges Muli and Lutu.

The Testimony of the parties having been taken and at the conclusion of the testimony the parties having agreed to meet with County Chief Leiato of Fagaitua, a claimant to the property, to dis*557•cuss and decide the ownership thereof and in accordance with said decision of the parties, they having met and arrived at a decision, it was reported to the court as hereinafter set forth.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:—

That the survey made by Saole and Togia and the objection filed by Fonoti and Sagatu shall be dismissed, each of them continuing to use his own plantation; the question regarding the pule to the land being set aside.

Sagatu and Fonoti shall continue using the plantations that are in Niusi and Togia and Saole shall continue using the plantations that are in Siigavaa but any of the parties may use the land termed bush land without objection from any of the parties.”

It is suggested that if after an examination of the foregoing decision there still exists a dispute between Fanua and Tupu the matter be taken to District Governor Leiato again inasmuch as he presided over the conference in which the agreement set out in the Court’s decision was reached.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSO N BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

SEP 2 8 2012 

REPLY TO TH E ATTENTION OF: 

WN-16J 

Susan Sylvester, Director 

Bureau of Water Quality 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

101 South Webster Street 

Post Office Box 7921 

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 

Dear Mrs. Sylvester: 

This letter provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final determination on your 

September 25, 2012 request to extend the date by which Wisconsin can certify EPA's 2013 

Vessel General Permit (VGP) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401. Under the CWA and 

§401 certification regulations, a period of up to one year may be granted for a State to respond to 

a request for certification if unusual circumstances exist. 

E PA believes that requirements under State law do represent unusual circumstances when they 

mandate specific actions that must be conducted before certification can be provided. Your letter 

indicated a schedule for a contested case hearing that would extend through January 18, 2013. 

EPA is unable to grant an extension to that date as EPA expects to issue the VGP in 

November 2012 to comply with a settlement agreement. However, EPA grants an extension to 

November 16, 2012 which would allow for summary judgment to be provided under the 

contested case schedule. 

If by November 16, 2012, Wisconsin has not acted upon the certification request, Wisconsin will 

have waived its right to certify according to CWA § 401(a)(1) and EPA will issue the permit for 

discharges to Wisconsin waters (40 C.F.R. § 124.53). I encourage Wisconsin to certify the VGP 

at the earliest date possible. 

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me or 

your staff may contact Sean Ramach at (312) 886-5284. 

Sincerely, 

Tirjka G. Hyde

 u 

Director, Water Division 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)
Exhibit 32.1   Pacific WebWorks, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  1. the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  March 27, 2008/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
**SPAR Group, Inc.**

 

EXHIBIT 32.1

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2008 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

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.

 

|   | /s/ Gary S. RaymondGary S. RaymondPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2008 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

Ex-3
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,786
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,278
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,648
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   590,292
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (108,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (108,320)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (108,320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (108,320)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm









Metro Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries


Harrisburg, Pennsylvania




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-87329, and No. 333-161114) and Form S-8 (No. 333-82085, No. 333-82083, No. 333-87313, No. 333-61634, No. 333-61636, No. 333-122490, No. 333-128382, No. 333-155931, and No. 333-155930) of Metro Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) of our reports dated March 16, 2010, relating to the Company’s consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.














/s/ Parente Beard LLC








Harrisburg, Pennsylvania


March 16, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6537 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6537

   To waive General Schedule qualification standards related to work 
experience for nurses at military medical treatment facilities, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2023

Ms. Strickland introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To waive General Schedule qualification standards related to work 
experience for nurses at military medical treatment facilities, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``REWARD Experience Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER WITH RESPECT TO EXPERIENCED NURSES AT MILITARY MEDICAL 
              TREATMENT FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--The hiring manager of a military medical treatment 
facility or other health care facility of the Department of Defense may 
waive any General Schedule qualification standard related to work 
experience established by the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management in the case of any applicant for a nursing or practical 
nurse position in a medical treatment facility or other health care 
facility the Department of Defense who--
            (1)(A) is a nurse or practical nurse in the Department of 
        Defense; or
            (B) was a nurse or practical nurse in the Department of 
        Defense for at least 1 year; and
            (2) after commencing work as a nurse or practical nurse in 
        the Department of Defense, obtained a Bachelor's degree or 
        graduate degree from an accredited professional nursing 
        educational program.
    (b) Certification.--If, in the case of any applicant described in 
subsection (a), a hiring manager waives a qualification standard in 
accordance with such subsection, such hiring manager shall submit to 
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management a certification that 
such applicant meets all remaining General Schedule qualification 
standards established by the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management for the applicable position.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0200

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TIMOTHY GALE MUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 2, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 2 2021

12/02/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0200
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory C. Talbott, the Senior Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer/Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company), in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the Report) 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, to my knowledge:



| | A) | the 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(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory C. Talbott                                      
|                        |  |  |  | Gregory C. Talbott                                          
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Executive Vice President,                            
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer/Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                               

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### William SHROPSHIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. V. FAJOTA, Chief of Banking/Inmate Accounts, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16729

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 5, 2017

William Shropshire, Carson City, NV, pro se.

D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner William Shropshire appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Fajota illegally removed funds from his inmate trust account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shropshire failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted administrative remedies or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative remedies are unavailable); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the *467merits). (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Glenn Scott, Respondent-Appellant, v American Museum of Natural History et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[771 NYS2d 499]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 13, 2003, which, inter alia, granted defendants-appellants ’ motion for summary judgment insofar as to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), and all claims pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), except those against defendant American Museum of Natural History (Museum) predicated upon its alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants-appellants’ motion to the further extent of dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim premised upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d), and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff, a stone derrickman, was injured while engaged in *443construction work on defendant Museum’s premises when a forklift operated by a coworker backed up over his leg. Contrary to the motion court’s holding, the safety regulation governing the backing up of “motor trucks” (12 NYCRR 23-9.7 [d]) is not applicable to the facts of this case since plaintiffs injury was caused by the operation of a forklift. The safety regulations governing forklifts, as opposed to “motor trucks,” are specifically set forth in 12 NYCRR 23-9.8, and include no “backing” provision of the sort found in 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d). Accordingly, in view of the inapplicability of 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d) to the injury-producing activity, plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated upon that Code section should have been dismissed *(see Brown v New York City Economic Dev. Corp.,*234 AD2d 33, 34 [1996]). The remaining portion of plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.8 (l), which requires forklifts to be equipped with a driver-activated horn, whistle, gong or similar warning device, was properly dismissed by the motion court since the evidence demonstrates that the forklift involved in plaintiffs accident was, in fact, equipped with an operator-controlled horn.

Also properly dismissed were plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes, since the evidence established that defendants-appellants did not have the authority and control over the injury-producing work necessary to support imposition of liability under such causes *(see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co.,*91 NY2d 343, 352 [1998]; *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 505 [1993]). Although defendant Morse Diesel, in its capacity as construction manager, had general supervisory and coordinating responsibilities, it did not have the level of direct supervision and control over the injury-producing activity necessary to support a finding of liability for common-law negligence or violation of Labor Law § 200 *(see Dalanna v City of New York,*308 AD2d 400 [2003]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.