alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-8146.

#### Julius Omar Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 827, 132 S. Ct. 121,

181 L. Ed. 2d 44,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5366.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18927]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Commission to Study Capital Budgeting

AGENCY: Commission to Study Capital Budgeting, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The agenda for the next meetings of the Commission to Study 
Capital Budgeting includes discussions on capital budgeting issues and 
the draft outline for the final report on Friday, July 24. On Saturday 
morning, July 25, the Commission will continue its discussions of 
different aspects of capital budgeting and discuss the next steps to be 
taken in preparation of its report. The Commission's final report on 
capital budgeting is due on December 13, 1998. Meetings are open to the 
public. Limited seating capacity is available.

Dates, Times and Places of the Next Commission Meetings

July 24, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., White House Conference Center, Lincoln 
Room (9:00 a.m. to Noon); Truman Room (Noon to 5:00 p.m.), 726 Jackson 
Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503
July 25, 1998, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, White House Conference Center, 
Truman Room, 726 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503

    The Commission is seeking all views on capital budgeting. 
Interested parties may submit their views to: Dick Emery, Executive 
Director, President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting, Old 
Executive Office Building (Room 258), Washington, DC 20503, Voice: 
(202) 395-4630, Fax: (202) 395-6170, E-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f19290819885909daeae938495969485b19e9c93df949e81df969e87"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be8eafbe2ffeae7d4d4e9feefeceeffcbe4e6e9a5eee4fba5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>, Website: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/
OMB/PCSCB/

FOR">http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/
OMB/PCSCB/

FOR</a> FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. William Dinkelacker, Ph.D., 
Designated Federal Official, Room 4456 Main Treasury, Washington, DC 
20220, Voice: (202) 622-1285, Fax: (202) 622-1294, E-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#13647a7f7f7a727e3d777a7d78767f72707876615367617672603d6063617a7d673d707c7e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="addac4c1c1c4ccc083c9c4c3c6c8c1cccec6c8dfedd9dfc8ccde83dedddfc4c3d983cec2c0">[email protected]</span></a>
Angel E. Ray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-18927 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 10-11293.

#### Juan Sanchez-Godoy, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 877, 132 S. Ct. 239,

181 L. Ed. 2d 136,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6507.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 402.
No. 11-5617.

#### Joe M. Toney, Petitioner v. B. A. Bledsoe, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 916, 132 S. Ct. 334,

181 L. Ed. 2d 208,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5861.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 74.
No. 11-5687.

#### Paul Alonzo Ewing, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 812, 132 S. Ct. 90,

181 L. Ed. 2d 20,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6977.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 24, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3127 

To permit occupational therapists to conduct the initial assessment visit 

and complete the comprehensive assessment under a Medicare home 

health plan of care for certain rehabilitation cases. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. 

MCKINLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, 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 permit occupational therapists to conduct the initial assessment visit and complete the comprehensive assessment under a Medicare home health plan of care for 

certain rehabilitation cases. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Home Health 

5 Flexibility Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3127 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS TO CON2 DUCT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT VISIT AND 

3 COMPLETE THE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESS4 MENT UNDER A MEDICARE HOME HEALTH 

5 PLAN OF CARE FOR CERTAIN REHABILITA6 TION CASES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

8 484.55(a)(2) or 484.55(b)(3) of title 42, Code of Federal 

9 Regulations, or any other provision of law, an occupational 

10 therapist may be designated to conduct the initial assess11 ment visit and to complete the comprehensive assessment 

12 for an individual who is eligible for home health services 

13 under title XVIII of the Social Security Act if the referral 

14 order by the physician— 

15 (1) does not include skilled nursing care; 

16 (2) includes occupational therapy; and 

17 (3) includes physical therapy or speech lan18 guage pathology. 

19 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in sub20 section (a) shall be construed to provide for initial eligi21 bility for coverage of home health services under title 

22 XVIII of the Social Security Act solely on the basis of 

23 a need for occupational therapy. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 11-5682.

#### Carlos Reyes, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 812, 132 S. Ct. 90,

181 L. Ed. 2d 20,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6963.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 24, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dectron Internationale Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ness Lakdawala, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ' 1350, as adopted pursuant to ' 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

   1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                                                  By: /s/ Ness Lakdawala
                                                      ------------------
                                                  Name: Ness Lakdawala
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1997 and the
Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9731
<ALLOWANCES>                                       406
<INVENTORY>                                       4710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15380
<PP&E>                                            7453
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   20724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11271
<BONDS>                                           2524
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1223
<OTHER-SE>                                        4040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     20724
<SALES>                                          41016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 41179
<CGS>                                            35350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    35350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    76
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1074
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (513)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (565)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (565)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.42)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39070-39071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 992]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Globe Metallurgical, Inc. 
(Ferroalloys and Silicon Metals); Beverly, Ohio

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Rickenbacker Port Authority, 
grantee of FTZ 138, for authority to establish special-purpose subzone 
status at the ferroalloys and silicon metals manufacturing plant of 
Globe Metallurgical, Inc., in Beverly, Ohio,

[[Page 39071]]

was filed by the Board on April 21, 1997, and notice inviting public 
comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 34-97, 62 FR 
24393, 5/5/97) and was amended on April 21, 1998; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that approval of the 
application, as amended, would be in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the ferroalloys and silicon metals manufacturing plant of 
Globe Metallurgical, Inc., located in Beverly, Ohio (Subzone 138D), at 
the location described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and subject to the 
following conditions:
    1. Foreign status products consumed in the production process shall 
be subject to duty at the applicable rate;
    2. Privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41) shall be elected on 
all foreign merchandise admitted to the subzone; and
    3. All foreign status merchandise subject to an antidumping or 
countervailing duty order (15 CFR 400.33) must be exported.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of July 1998.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19398 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No.

Darrell Gene Aaron § In the Texas Court of

vs. § Criminal Appeals

The State ofTexas § at Austin, Texas

COURT nc^fIVE0|M RT°F CRWWW. APPEALS

OnAppeal from the Fifth Court of Appeajterp •, ^ _

in Cause No. 05-15-00508-CR TM5

^bel Acosta, Clerk

Appellant's Motion to Extend the FILED IN

Time for Filing a Petition for Discretionary RevR^feJRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

To the Honorable Judges ofsaid Court:

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Comes now Appellant, and respectfully requests that the time for filing a

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above-styled and numbered cause be

extended. In support ofthis motion Appellant would show:

1. On November 25, 2015, Appellant's conviction wa^s^Sfm-ed by the-Fifth——

Court of Appeals in Cause No. 05-15-00508-CR styled Darell Gene Aaron v. The

State ofTexas.

2. The present deadline for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review is

December 25, 2015. Appellant respectfully requests an extension of time until
February 25, 2016.

3. No previous extension oftime has been granted.

4. Appellant would show the Court that a reasonable explanation exists for the

requested extension. Appellant is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice and has limited legal knowledge. Appellant must go to the unit law

library to research and draft the issues.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully requests that the time

for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review be extended to February 25, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

Darell Aaron, Appellant # 01987709

Powledge Unit

1400 FM 3452

Palestine, TX 75803-2350

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion _b§s been;served on the

Dallas County District Attorney's Office, Appellate Division, 133 N. Riverfront

Blvd., LB 19, Dallas, Texas, 75207, by depositing same in the United States Mail,

Postage Prepaid on December d^ 2015.

(hjS1 ^

Darell Aaron, Appellant
No. 10-10973.

#### Maria Ayala-Esquer, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 860, 132 S. Ct. 197,

181 L. Ed. 2d 103,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6049.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 723.
No. 10-5681.

#### W. Brett Reid, Petitioner v. Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 985,

178 L. Ed. 2d 814,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 322.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 335, 178 L. Ed. 2d 218, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7360.
December 11, 2013

Mr. Robert Hadow

Best In Flight

9 Airport Road

Morristown, NJ 07960

Dear Mr. Hadow:

This is in response to your April 18, 2011 letter sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2011-0437) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration to amend the wording 

of § 61.56 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to clarify its text in accordance 

with its intent. Specifically, your request suggests adding ‘flight instructor certificate’ to 

§ 61.56(d). The intent of your proposed change would accept a certified flight instructor 

initial flight test as an alternative means of compliance with the flight review requirements of 

§ 61.56. 

On September 16, 2013 the FAA amended part 61 of 14 CFR, as it relates to certified flight 

instructor flight reviews, recent pilot in command experience, and airman online services. 

Your petition for rulemaking request is cited in the preamble of the final rule. See footnote 

#5. A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information.

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 11-5284.

#### Gary Roland Welch, Petitioner v. Randall G. Workman, Warden.

565 U.S. 899, 132 S. Ct. 292,

181 L. Ed. 2d 176,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5637.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 639 F.3d 980.
No. 10-1402.

#### Jefferson County School Board of Commissioners, et al., Petitioners v. Steve B. Smith, et al.

565 U.S. 820, 132 S. Ct. 103,

181 L. Ed. 2d 31,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6699.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 641 F.3d 197.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3189 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3189

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a partnership 
  to provide legal services to women veterans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2019

    Ms. Wild (for herself, Ms. Moore, Mr. Horsford, Ms. Porter, Ms. 
Shalala, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Rouda, Mr. Case, Mr. Trone, Ms. Houlahan, Mrs. 
 Trahan, Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Pappas, Mr. Cox of California, Mr. 
    Garcia of Illinois, Mr. Swalwell of California, Mrs. Hayes, Ms. 
Stevens, Mrs. Fletcher, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Moulton, Mr. Cardenas, 
Ms. Gabbard, Ms. Scanlon, and Ms. Dean) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a partnership 
  to provide legal services to women veterans, 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 ``Improving Legal Services for Female 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ON 
              LEGAL SERVICES FOR WOMEN VETERANS.

    (a) Partnership Required.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
establish a partnership with at least one nongovernmental organization 
to provide legal services to women veterans.
    (b) Focus.--The focus of the partnership established under 
subsection (a) shall be on the 10 highest unmet needs of women veterans 
as set forth in the most recently completed Community Homelessness 
Assessment, Local Education and Networking Groups for Veterans (CHALENG 
for Veterans) survey.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Emil Best, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 661]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Del-ligatti, J.), rendered January 25, 2016, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of various offenses in connection with his acts of engaging in sexual contact on three separate occasions with the complainant, a child who was under the age of 11 at the time of the incidents.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

*618Furthermore, it is within the discretion of the trial court to limit the scope of cross-examination when questions are irrelevant, concern collateral issues, or risk misleading the jury *(see People v Caballero,*137 AD3d 929, 930 [2016]; *People v Legere,*81 AD3d 746, 750 [2011]; *People v Gaviria,*67 AD3d 701 [2009]; *People v Francisco,*44 AD3d 870 [2007]). Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of one of the People’s witnesses.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.
-

a

National Infant
Immunization Week
No. 10-11085.

#### Sergio Lua-Bermejo, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 866, 132 S. Ct. 212,

181 L. Ed. 2d 115,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6495.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 421 Fed. Appx. 669.
No. 11-222.

#### Lidia Pavolovna Panchenko, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 945, 132 S. Ct. 422,

181 L. Ed. 2d 261,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7257.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 11-5890.

#### Brian S. Kudalis, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 924, 132 S. Ct. 355,

181 L. Ed. 2d 224,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7054.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 429 Fed. Appx. 165.