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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1280 

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the operation of the Medicare Comparative Cost Adjustment (CCA) program in Texas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas (for himself and Mr. GONZALEZ) 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 part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the operation of the Medicare Comparative 

Cost Adjustment (CCA) program in Texas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1280 IH 

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

2 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

3 PROGRAM IN TEXAS. 

4 Section 1860C–1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395w–29(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(C) NO PART IN TEXAS.—No part of the 

8 MSA is in Texas.’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,827,600
<SECURITIES>                                88,262,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,650,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,262,300
<PP&E>                                       5,583,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 240,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             285,345,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,328,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,208,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               285,345,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,191,800
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,059,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               179,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,516,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,911,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                   413,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,497,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
Henry MEDINA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-1157.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, denied.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A1 15 2 . ERI C HI XSON v . THE STATE.

Aft er en t eri n g a g u i lt y p l ea, Eri c Hi x s o n fi led a m o t i o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e
ap p eal . Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o ti o n , an d Hi x s o n fi l ed t hi s ap p eal

. In Co o k v. S ta t e , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt d et erm i n ed t h at a t ri al co u rt l ack s au t h o ri t y
t o gran t an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal

. Co o k v. S t a t e ,

_ __ Ga.

_ __ ,

_ _ _ (5 ) (Cas e No

. S2 1 A1 27 0 , d eci d ed M arch 1 5, 20 2 2 ). Hi x s o n , th erefo re, “ h ad n o ri g h t t o fi l e a m o t i o n fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap peal i n t he t ri al co u rt ; h is rem ed y , i f an y l i es i n h ab eas co rp u s .”
Ru t l ed g e v. S ta t e ,

_

_ _ G a.

_ _ _,

_ _ _ (Cas e No

. S2 1 A1 0 3 6 , deci d ed M arch 1 5 , 2 0 2 2 ).
Rat h er t han d en y i n g Hi x s o n ’ s m o t i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt s h o ul d h av e di s m i s s ed i t

. See i d. Acco rd in g ly
, th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd e r d en y i n g t h e m o ti o n fo r o ut -o f-t i m e ap p eal i s h ereb y VACATED an d th i s ap p eal i s h ereb y REM ANDED to t h e t ri al co u rt , wh i ch i s DIRECTED t o en t er an o rd er d i s m is s in g t h e m o ti o n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. March 29, 2022

03/29/2022
: OFFICE OF THE AmORNNGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

2i!tzv== 
! 
-. 
b&~able to find; but both of tho60 ira ruditl-ku of the old 

hm8 Court of bmti8, dellvwed in th8 yW 1.880, and rrftt8n 

b7 OIU Of %%88’ plo8t -t And mawoOed jUdQ88, -8idi4~ 
‘,: 

liozmrsbl@ wilt.t#rr tiee &81X, Page 7 608 

"We are of opblan, howovw, that #a 

‘th0 OViltbXlW :ddilOti 58 ~tU8UfffOiW~ in 

r a lw, ia o r & s pro 

p mr iwt. smw 

lpndr of the 0f?emo had bun Goduo8d, ln 

ft U&8 Mrt Of t$lO dO8Wf~tiW identity Of 

the OffonW, and should hay. boon proven. 

ml1 t; sac, at&O; kl ‘C-8, 2531 tt~tOn 

V. m %tBtO, 1 3-8 ct. Aw. 168) 3080 

v. w Btato, 1 TWA8 Qt. Am. hOOi ttat8on 

0. !fb tlbt+ 5 *@X88 ct. &Q. 12. 

lbder~tho authority of th8 above oare8, you era r88peotml3 Bdti8.d th8t ?OW third QUO8tiCUk UU8t b0 BMWl’Od in th8 

WgBtfVO, U&O88 w BOOWOd rUpFO8fiy alOOt t0 b0 tlhd tULd8r 

the ~POV181QB8 Of th@ old hr. I[n OTOlXt Of 8UQh PUOtO eV8ZlttUb 

lity, th. tl’+ *Odd WDOO88W11J b. in th0 bi8tl’iOt OOWt, a8 

th8t OO?Wt hU OSO1*8fVO jWi8~OthXi in f8104 -8.8. 

&i BMWaF t0 JOW fOWth qm8tiOlX it i. OUP OpLniOXl 

that’“pwdlug lndiotwnt8 wy b8 legally trd8forrod fran th8 

dirtsiot court to the oaunt~ omrt for trial. See the 8ubdlvl8fon an Vmn8ier of %a~808 l 12 tax. Jw. 422* Sea. 135, et 

8@Q) Ap$fO& 419, (lOti Of 0Phil.d ?POt%dlUW. A 8~08tOd fOl'B 

oforderappeaminl2liu.#ur. 433. 

Dar the WI re88oM s88igned in BMVOring mUr third 

qUO8t;~, it in UWVW t0 PW fifth OBW that i Del'- 

8on~~Botle in the distl?lUt kWUFt for the 
. - 

609
Shawn Demar JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9406.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Joseph L. Castle II, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Castle Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

I.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the three months ended
         June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

II.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: August 16, 2004                     /S/JOSEPH L. CASTLE II
      -------------------                  ----------------------------
                                           Joseph L. Castle II Chief
                                           Executive Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Castle Energy Corporation and will be retained by Castle Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Mary Roslyn MIXON, petitioner, v. CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS.

No. 12-6959.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
ORDER GRANTING

STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTION Case No. 17-cv-00726-WHA

-1-

B ARRON 

&

N EWBURGER , P . C .

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT BASSICK, an individual, on 

behalf of himself and those similarly 

situated;

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

TRUEACCORD CORP., a Delaware 

corporation,

 Defendant

Case No. 17-cv-00726-WHA

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS ACTION

Plaintiff Elliot Bassick and Defendant TrueAccord Corp. having 

stipulated to the dismissal of this action with prejudice as a result of a settlement

between Plaintiff Elliot Bassick and Defendant TrueAccord Corp., the court hereby 

GRANTS the stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Elliot 

Bassick without prejudice as to the remaining putative class.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: May ___, 2017

 

 Hon. Joseph C. Spero

_____________________________

United States District Judge 

William Alsup June 1

Case 3:17-cv-00726-WHA Document 19 Filed 06/01/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial data extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended December 31, 2000
included in Part I Financial information and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,597
<SECURITIES>                                     7,792
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,824
<PP&E>                                          47,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,752
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,191
<SALES>                                          5,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,394
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                       625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1028

GEOFFREY R. AKERS, DR., P.E.-, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CARLOS GUTIERREZ, Secretary of Commerce; PATRICIA BOYLAN, Director-OCR/US Patent Office, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01000-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 3, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geoffrey R. Akers, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Monika L. Moore, Catherine DeRoever Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Geoffrey R. Akers appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Akers v. Gutierrez , No. 1:07-cv-01000-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. filed July 30, 2008 & entered Aug. 1, 2008). We deny Akers’ motion for a copy of the record. 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10977]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO-17-1-6023B; FRL-5197-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the state of Missouri for the purpose of 
bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for lead. The SIP was submitted by the state to 
satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment 
area lead SIP for the Doe Run primary lead smelter in Herculaneum, 
Missouri. In the final rules section of the Federal Register, the EPA 
is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without 
prior proposal, because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
revision amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and 
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting 
on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
June 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Lisa V. Haugen, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, 
Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Haugen at (913) 551-7877.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal 
Register.

    Dated: April 12, 1995.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-10977 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Nita B. ARCHIE, petitioner, v. VERIZON, et al.

No. 12-9401.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Timothy Wayne SEABURY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10169.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     registrant's financial statements as of and for the nine minth period ended
     December 28, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
     financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                         2,255,923
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,228,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,933,575
<PP&E>                                         4,652,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,996,690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,742,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,551,121
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                       201,079
<OTHER-SE>                                     (410,709)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,742,924
<SALES>                                        13,553,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,553,987
<CGS>                                          8,672,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,672,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,687,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             54,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,138,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,138,856)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,138,856)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.06)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.52


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	
  Principal Amount: 
  $500,000.00

  	
   

  	
  Date of Note: 
  August 4, 2000

  



 


PROMISE TO PAY.  Marc Verissimo (“Borrower”) promises to pay to Silicon Valley
Bancshares (“Lender”), or order, in lawful money of the United States of
America, the principal amount of Five Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($500,000.00) in accordance with the terms of this Promissory Note.


 


PAYMENT. 
Borrower will pay this Promissory Note $500,000.00 in full on
March 1, 2006 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


PREPAYMENT.  Borrower may pay without penalty all or a portion of the amount
owed earlier than it is due.


 


TERMINATION.  If
Borrower resigns or is involuntarily terminated from his employment with
Silicon Valley Bank (“Bank”) before March 1, 2006 for any reason except
death, or an Involuntary Termination or Constructive Termination following a
Change in Control (all as defined and further described in the Change and
Control Severance Benefit Policy) than this Promissory Note shall be
immediately due and payable.  If
(a) Borrower’s employment terminates by Borrower’s death before this Promissory
Note is repaid, or (b) Borrower’s employment terminates by an Involuntary
Termination or Constructive Termination following a Change in Control, then
this Promissory Note shall be due and payable on the Maturity Date.


 


CHOICE OF LAW.  This Promissory Note shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without regard to
principles of conflicts of law.


 


Borrower understands and agrees that this agreement is
a Promissory Note, not an employment agreement or contract.  Borrower also understands that by virtue of
Borrower’s position with the Bank, Lender has agreed to make this loan to
Borrower on terms that may be deemed preferential in nature.


 


	
  BORROWER:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Marc Verissimo

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  August 14,
  2000

  
	
  Marc Verissimo

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  LENDER:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SILICON VALLEY BANCSHARES

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Chris Lutes

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  August 14,
  2000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
    Chris Lutes

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  CFO
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD THOME,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS LLC,

Defendant. /

No. CV 12-05866 SI 

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is reassigned to the Honorable William H. Alsup in the San

Francisco division for all further proceedings. Counsel are instructed that all future filings shall

bear the initials WHA immediately after the case number. All hearing dates presently scheduled are

vacated and motions should be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been

reassigned. Briefing schedules remain unchanged. See Civil L.R. 7-7(d). Matters for which a

magistrate judge has already issued a report and recommendation shall not be rebriefed or noticed

for hearing before the newly assigned judge; such matters shall proceed in accordance with Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b).

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

Dated: December 5, 2012 

rev 4-12

 

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk of Court
Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 1 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 2 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 3 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 4 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 5 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 6 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 7 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 8 of 9

Case 3:17-cv-00883-CRB   Document 1   Filed 01/31/17   Page 9 of 9
Lomack THOMPSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7238.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
R.L., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2959

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 27, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.