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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1416 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1416

 To repeal the reduction in Medicare payment for therapeutic shoes and 
 inserts for individuals with diabetes effected by section 627 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

Mrs. McCarthy 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 repeal the reduction in Medicare payment for therapeutic shoes and 
 inserts for individuals with diabetes effected by section 627 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

    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 ``Medicare Diabetic Footwear Quality 
Restoration Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE REDUCTION IN MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR ORTHOPEDIC 
              SHOES AND INSERTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DIABETES.

    (a) In General.--Section 627(c) of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) is 
amended by inserting ``, and before January 1, 2006'' after ``January 
1, 2005''.
    (b) Conforming Law.--For items furnished on and after January 1, 
2006, the provisions of sections 1833(o), 1834(h)(4)(C), and 1842(s)(2) 
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(o), 1395m(h)(4)(C), 
1395u(s)(2)) shall be restored as if the amendments made by subsections 
(a) and (b) of section 627 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) had not 
been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13-1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

GERALD T. RICH, JR.,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Thompson, Selya and Kayatta,

Circuit Judges.

Mary Davis and Tisdale & Davis, P.A. on brief for appellant.

Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, and Renée M.

Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

January 12, 2015
Per curiam. After defendant-appellant Gerald T. Rich,

Jr. pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to distribute

marijuana, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and making false

statements to federal agents, see 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), the

district court sentenced him to a 72-month term of immurement on

the drug-trafficking count and a concurrent 60-month term of

immurement on the false statement count. Rich appeals, asserting

only that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

There is no reason to tarry. We have carefully reviewed

the plea agreement, the change-of-plea colloquy, the undisputed

portions of the presentence investigation report, and the

transcript of the disposition hearing. See United States v.

Almonte-Nuñez, 771 F.3d 84, 86 (1st Cir. 2014). We are fully

satisfied that the district court's sentence, which was 25 months

below the bottom of a properly calculated guideline sentencing

range, was substantively reasonable. See United States v. King,

741 F.3d 305, 310 (1st Cir. 2014) ("It is a rare below-the-range

sentence that will prove vulnerable to a defendant's claim of

substantive unreasonableness.").

In the mine-run of criminal cases, there is no single

appropriate sentence but, rather, a universe of reasonable

sentences. See United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212, 234 (1st

Cir. 2011). The sentence imposed in this case falls squarely

within this universe.

-2-
Here, moreover, the district court made a thorough and

meticulous appraisal of Rich's personal history and

characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offenses of

conviction, and other factors relevant to sentencing. The court

explicated a plausible rationale for the sentence imposed and

reached an eminently fair result. No more was exigible to defeat

a claim of substantive unreasonableness. See United States v.

Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008); United States v. JiménezBeltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc).

We need go no further. Appellate courts should not write

at length to know other end than to hear their own words resonate. 

See deBenedictis v. Brady-Zell (In re Brady-Zell), 756 F.3d 69, 71

(1st Cir. 2014). Because Rich's appeal is patently meritless, we

say no more. Instead, we summarily affirm Rich's sentence. See

1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Affirmed.

-3-
7.6.4-4 Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women (September 2018) 

Prescription:

Per PGI 6.410, insert clause 7.6.4-4, Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women, in 

all awards over $100,000, except Task Orders issued under FDIC 

BOAs/RBOAs/BPAs.

Clause:

(a) Contractor confirms its commitment to equal opportunity in employment and

contracting. To implement this commitment, the Contractor shall ensure, to the

maximum extent possible consistent with applicable law, the fair inclusion of

minorities and women in its workforce. The Contractor shall insert the substance

of this clause in all subcontracts under this Contract whose dollar value exceeds

$100,000. Within ten business days of a written request from the Contracting

Officer, or such longer time as the Contracting Officer determines, and without

any additional consideration required from FDIC, the Contractor shall provide

documentation, satisfactory to FDIC, of the actions it (and as applicable, its

subcontractors) has undertaken to demonstrate its good faith effort to comply

with the aforementioned provisions. For purposes of this contract, “good faith

effort” may include actions by the contractor intended to identify and, if present,

remove barriers to minority and women employment or expansion of employment

opportunities for minorities and women within its workforce. Efforts to remove

such barriers may include, but are not limited to, recruiting minorities and women,

providing job-related training, or other activity that could lead to those results.

(b) The documentation requested by the Contracting Officer to demonstrate

“good faith effort” may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:

1. The total number of Contractor’s employees, and the number of minority and

women employees, by race, ethnicity, and gender (e.g., an EEO-1);

2. A list of subcontract awards under the Contract that includes: dollar amount,

date of award, and subcontractor’s minority and/or gender ownership status;

3. Information similar to that required in item 1, above, with respect to each

subcontractor with a subcontract value that exceeds $100,000; and/or

4. The Contractor’s plan to ensure that minorities and women have appropriate

opportunities to enter and advance within its workforce, including outreach

efforts.

(c) Consistent with Section 342(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and

Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (Dodd-Frank

Act), a failure to demonstrate to the Director of FDIC’s Office of Minority and

Women Inclusion such good faith efforts to include minorities and women in the

Contractor’s workforce (and as applicable, the workforce of its subcontractors),
may result in termination of the Contract for default, referral to the Office of 

Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or other appropriate action. 

(d) For purposes of this clause, the terms “minority,” “minority-owned business” 

and “women-owned business” shall have the meanings set forth in Section 

342(g) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
H. R. 1460

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6200 Rolling 

Road in Springfield, Virginia, as the ‘‘Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office 

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, Virginia, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Captain 

Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-35-TLS 

)

JUAN PENA )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 39], filed on January 28, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 39] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on February 12, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificate (Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley****Act of 2002) of principal financial of****ficer**

** **

 

I, Edward P. Hennessey, Jr., Interim Chief Financial Officer of CleanTech Biofuels, Inc. (the “Company”), 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:

 

1.  This Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

 

 

| Date: August 2, 2017      | /s/ Edward P. Hennessey, Jr.    |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                                               | Edward P. Hennessey, Jr.        |
|                                               | Interim Chief Financial Officer |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yari Cale LEAKE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6276.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Yari Cale Leake, Appellant pro se. Kimberly Ann Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Yari Cale Leake appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), his prior criminal judgment. Because Leake cannot challenge an order in his criminal case using the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we affirm. *See United States v. O’Keefe,*169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that criminal defendant cannot challenge orders entered in his criminal case using Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)); *United States v. Mosavi,*138 F.3d 1365,1366 (11th Cir.1998) (holding that a defendant cannot challenge criminal forfeiture orders under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). 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*
Lee Charles MILLSAP, Jr., petitioner, v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 12-10065.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
#### In re DRUMMER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 13, 1912.)

In the matter of the application of Andrew C. Drummer, an elector of the town of Dayton, for a writ of certiorari to the Town Board of the Town of Dayton.

PER CURIAM.

The determination of the present appeal is held until the review of the proceeding by the court after the filing of the return.
我们应该如何识别

和处理错误信息

识别和处理错

误信息,保障

自己、家人、

朋友和社区的

安全。

我们所说的“错误信息” 

是什么意思?

错误信息是有意或无意传播的信息,

其产生时所掌握的最佳证据表明它们

属于虚假、不准确或误导性信息。

如何识别错误信息?

●	查看来源。并与可靠的来源进行交叉比对。

●	阅读标题以外的内容,了解完整的背景。

●	理解帖子背后的意图。

为什么错误信息传播得这么快? 

●	我们想保护我们所关心的人。

●	我们想感受到与他人间的纽带。

●	我们喜欢自己知人所不知的那种感觉。

●	我们可能想要了解背后的原因,或是想分享一些有助于我们跟多了

解某些事件的信息。

●	错误信息往往会引起情绪上的反应。

●	错误信息会断章取义,而起初看上去可能很真实。

●	由于这些因素,用户在社交媒体上传播错误信息的速度往往快于事

实的传播。

●	所有的人,无论是否是专家,在互联网上发声时的影响力都是一样

的。
为什么错误信息是有害的?

人们如果相信错误的信息并以这些信息为依据

采取行动,公众的健康就会受到影响。	

如果听到或看到错误信息,应该怎么做?

三个步骤能帮助阻止错误信息的传播:

●	识别错误信息。

●	不要助长错误信息的传播。

●	引导人们从值得信赖的来源获得健康信息,如美国食品和药物管理局和我们的

政府合作伙伴,包括 usa.gov/health, coronavirus.gov 和 vaccines.gov.

如何能有效地与朋友和家人谈论

错误信息? 

您在与人交谈时一定要:	

●	注意倾听 ●	不要羞辱他人

●	产生共鸣 ●	使用包容性的语言

●	指明可靠的信息来源

请考虑分享这些观点:

●	就其性质而言,科学是要不断发展的。

●	我们的建议可能会随着科学的发展而变化。

●	这并不意味着我们不应该相信科学。科学的变化是对某一主题有了更深的

理解后的结果。

●	相信科学,它给为我们带来了人类最伟大的医学成就,比如终结天花(疫

苗接种),细菌理论(手术更加安全)和基因疗法(治愈某些类型的失

明。
EX-35.3
(logo) PHH Mortgage

4001 Leadenhall Road
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054


February 28, 2008



Re: Supplemental Servicer Compliance Statement

Attention: Aurora Loan Services
Deal Name: see Schedule A
PHH Investor code: see Schedule A

Dear Sir and/or Madame:

This statement of compliance is being provided in accordance with Item 1123 of
Regulation AB. The Undersigned hereby states that:

1. I am an authorized officer of PHH Mortgage Corporation (the "Servicer");

2. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from January 1,
   2007 through December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and its performance
   under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
   fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
   respects throughout the Reporting Period.



By: /s/ Marc J. Hinkle
Name: Marc J. Hinkle
Title: Vice President


(page)


Schedule A

PHH Investor ID         Deal name

279                     SASCO 2007-GEL2
528                     SASCO 2006-RF2
538                     LMT 2006-6
581                     SARM 2006-4
583                     LMT 2007-10
589                     SARM 2006-9
592                     SASCO 2007-SC1
593                     LXS 2006-15
601                     SARM 2006-10
602                     LMT 2006-7
617                     SASCO 2006-GEL4
661                     LXS 2006-19
669                     LMT 2006-8
676                     SARM 2006-12
698                     LMT 2007-5
755                     SARM 2006-5
805                     LMT 2006-02
807                     SARM 2006-3
852                     SARM 2007-3
891                     SASCO 2007-RF2
912                     LMT 2007-9
920                     LMT 2007-6
928                     SASCO 2006-GEL2
966                     SASCO 2006-GEL1
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
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 Annual Report of Puramed Bioscience Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned 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 results of operations of the Company.

|                         |                                                         
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 25, 2009 | /s/ Russell W. Mitchell                                 
|                         | Russell W. Mitchell
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



|                         |                                                       
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 25, 2009 | /s/ James W. Higgins                                  
|                         | James W. Higgins
Chief Financial and Operating Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:15-cr-00028-TLS-SLC

)

TYRONE M. WRIGHT )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on September 6, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his

right against compelled self-incrimination;
(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Superseding Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 6th day of September 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
28068 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 30, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Errol Chang, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 739–0714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final

regulations that are the subject of this

correction were amended in ET Docket

92–165, modifying 47 CFR Section

15.205. As published in the CFR, the

final regulations contain errors which

may prove to be misleading and are in

need of correction.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

Communication equipment, Radio.

Accordingly, 47 CFR Part 15 is

corrected by making the following

correction amendments:

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY

DEVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4(i), 302, 303, 304, 307

and 624A of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303,

304, 307 and 544A.

§ 15.205 [Amended]

2. In § 15.205, paragraph (a), column

two of the table the first entry ‘‘16.42–

423’’ is revised to read ‘‘16.42–16.423’’.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–13114 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–152; RM–8565]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Bells, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Thomas S. Desmond, allots

Channel 225A to Bells, Texas, as the

community’s first local FM service. See

59 FR 66884, December 28, 1994.

Channel 225A can be allotted to Bells in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements without the imposition of

a site restriction, at coordinates 33–36–

37 North Latitude and 96–24–38 West

Longitude. With this action, this

proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective July 10, 1995. The

window period for filing applications

will open on July 10, 1995, and close on

August 10, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 94–152,

adopted May 17, 1995, and released

May 24, 1995. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended,

1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, as amended.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas, is amended by

adding Bells, Channel 225A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–13113 Filed 5–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F