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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 818 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 818

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of 
    receipt of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward 
  satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of 
           skilled nursing facility services under Medicare.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2011

 Mr. Kerry (for himself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count a period of 
    receipt of outpatient observation services in a hospital toward 
  satisfying the 3-day inpatient hospital requirement for coverage of 
           skilled nursing facility services under Medicare.

    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 Access to Medicare 
Coverage Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. COUNTING A PERIOD OF RECEIPT OF OUTPATIENT OBSERVATION SERVICES 
              IN A HOSPITAL TOWARD THE 3-DAY INPATIENT HOSPITAL 
              REQUIREMENT FOR COVERAGE OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY 
              SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1861(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(i)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For 
purposes of this subsection, an individual receiving outpatient 
observation services shall be deemed to be an inpatient during such 
period, and the date such individual ceases receiving such services 
shall be deemed the hospital discharge date (unless such individual is 
admitted as a hospital inpatient at the end of such period).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to receipt of outpatient observation services beginning on or 
after January 1, 2011, but applies to a period of post-hospital 
extended care services that was completed before the date of the 
enactment of this Act only if an administrative appeal is or has been 
made with respect to such services not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement such 
amendment through an interim final regulation, program instruction, or 
otherwise.
                                 <all>
```
June 12, 2001


EXHIBIT 10.3



December 1, 2009



 

Barry McCabe

East Greenville, PA



Dear Barry:

It is our pleasure to inform you that you will be a participant in the 2010 Knoll, Inc. Incentive Compensation Program. 

In these challenging times, our objectives are simple and something that each of us can help contribute to:

Protect our balance sheet and profitability while ensuring that we make the right investments in products, service and technology to position Knoll for long term success as demand eventually recovers. 

Our success in 2010 and beyond will be a direct result of your ability to help us accomplish these long term goals while meeting our short term 2010 operating profit plan. 

If you achieve your individual goals and Knoll makes its 2010 operating profit plan, you can qualify for a total target incentive payment of $295,000.

This award is subject to our approval and that of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors), which may exercise discretion in adjusting your award up or down based on factors the Board of Directors (or appropriate committee of the Knoll, Inc. Board of Directors) deems appropriate, including Knoll's performance relative to the industry, other macroeconomic factors and your individual performance.  You must be employed by Knoll on the date this award is distributed in order to receive this incentive.

We have great confidence in your ability to contribute to our success in 2010 and look forward to being able to present you with your award in early 2011. 

Thank you for all that you do for Knoll.

Sincerely,


	
/s/ Andrew B. Cogan
	
/s/ Lynn M. Utter

	
Andrew B. Cogan
	
Lynn M. Utter

	
CEO
	
President and COO
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Eastern Regional Research Center: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania Eastern Regional Research Center Docs Poultry





- Research
- Highlights
- Publications
- Presentation
- Models
- Data
- Contact

PoultryFARM - Lab Tourheadline bar It is often said that a picture is worth a 1,000 words.  Enjoy the the tour!


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 11.     STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

City National Bancshares Corporation

Computation of Earnings Per Common Share on a
Primary & Fully Diluted Basis

In thousands, except per share data
                                         Nine Months Ended    Three Months Ended
                                            September 30,         September 30,
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                           1996       1995       1996       1995

Net Income .........................   $    710   $    740   $    145   $    177
Dividends on preferred
  stock ............................          2       --            2       --
                                       --------   --------   --------   --------
Net income applicable
  to primary common
  shares ...........................        708        740        143        177
Interest expense on
  convertible subordinated
  debentures, net of
  income tax .......................          9          9          3          3
                                       --------   --------   --------   --------
Net income applicable to
  fully diluted common
  shares ...........................   $    717   $    749   $    146   $    180
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========
Number of average shares
Primary ............................    112,855    111,141    114,141    111,141
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========
Fully diluted:
  Average common shares
    outstanding ....................    112,855    111,141    114,141    111,141
  Average convertible
    subordinated debentures
    converted to common shares .....     13,850     13,850     13,850     13,850
                                       --------   --------   --------   --------
                                        126,705    124,991    127,991    124,991
                                       ========   ========   ========   ========
Net income per share
  Primary ..........................   $   6.27   $   6.66   $   1.25   $   1.59
  Fully diluted ....................       5.66       5.99       1.14       1.44
CONSENT
      OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT








I
      hereby
      consent to the use, in the Form 10-KSB Annual Reports, of Artfest International





Corporation
      for the years ended December 31, 2005, and 2004, of my report dated January
      15,





2007
      for
      the periods ended and as at December 31, 2005 and 2004, relating to the
      financial





statements,
      and notes, of Artfest International Corporation, which appear in said annual
      reports or





are
      referenced in subsequent reports of said company.














/s/
      Thomas Bauman, C.P.A.





Huntington
      Station, New York





February
      9, 2007
TROY CURRY

- PENNAMMON

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1483

Opinion filed May 3, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Troy Curry

- Pennammon, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The pe tition for writ of habeas corpus is denied on the merits.

WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
NOTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MARTIN KUSTER, Appellant

v.

WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SANDISK LLC, Cross

- Appellants

______________________

2022

- 1644, 2022

- 1645, 2022

- 1713

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appe al Board in Nos. IPR2020

- 01391, IPR2020

- 01410.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D AVID A. R EED , Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by R USSELL K ORN , A NDREW N. S AUL ; F REDERICK L EE W HITMER , New York, NY.

L. K IERAN K IECKHEFER , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for cross

- appellants. Also represented by B RIAN B UROKER , Washington, DC ; B LAINE H. E VANSON , Irvine, CA

. Case: 22-1644 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2024______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE , Chief Judge

, H UGHES and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

J anuary 11, 202 4 Date Case: 22-1644 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2024
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-1941

Lower Tribunal No. 15-23155

________________



### Willie Jones

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch

, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner

, Assistant Public

Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez

, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

HENDON, J.Willie Jones appeals from a final judgment of conviction and sentence on

the charges of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to sell,

and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jones argues on appeal that certain of the

trial court’s comments shifted the burden of proof and prejudiced his defense at

trial. None of these comments were objected to at trial. Thus, we will reverse only

if the comment was fundamental error, i.e., “error that ‘reaches down into the

validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been

obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.’” Brooks v. State

, 762 So. 2d

879, 899 (Fla. 2000); see also Jones v. State

, 612 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1992) (holding

that the contemporaneous objection rule applies to such comments and an appellate

court will not reverse in the absence of an objection unless the comment is so

prejudicial as to be fundamental error); Pope v. Wainwright

, 496 So. 2d 798 (Fla.

1986) (concluding that errors other than those constituting fundamental error are

waived unless timely raised in the trial court).

After a thorough examination of the record on appeal, we find no

fundamental error in the trial court’s comments. Indeed, not every act or comment

that might be interpreted as demonstrating less than neutrality on the part of the

judge will be deemed fundamental error. Mathew v. State

, 837 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.

4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ convictions.

2Finally, Jones asserts that there is a discrepancy between the oral

pronouncement of sentence and the written sentencing order. This error was not

preserved by a contemporaneous objection during the sentencing hearing or by

raising the issue under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), which

precludes Jones from raising the error on direct appeal. See Brannon v. State

, 850

So. 2d 452, 456 (Fla. 2003); Green v. State

, 224 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

As we find that Jones has neither properly preserved the trial court's alleged

sentencing error, nor demonstrated fundamental error on appeal, we affirm his

sentence without prejudice to Jones to raise this issue in an appropriately filed rule

3.800 motion with the trial court.

Affirmed.

3
#### In the Matter of Angel Suero, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 809]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While a group of inmates were returning from a medication run, a correction officer noticed that petitioner appeared to have an object concealed in the palm of his right hand. When the officer directed petitioner to stand to the side, petitioner complied but proceeded to put the object in his mouth. The officer applied body holds to prevent petitioner from swallowing the object, but was unable to retrieve it. Petitioner attempted to strike the officer and a physical altercation ensued during which petitioner attempted to kick responding officers, assaulted another officer and ignored orders to stop struggling. He was eventually subdued. As a result of the foregoing, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order, assaulting staff, engaging in violent conduct, smuggling and refusing to comply with frisk procedures. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of all charges except for refusing to comply with frisk procedures. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report and another officer present at the scene, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Alache v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1240, 1241 [2012]; *Matter of Wright v Fischer,*87 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 804 [2012]). Petitioner’s testimony that the misbehavior report was fabricated and that it was he *1510who was assaulted presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see *Matter of Harrington v*Prack, 91 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2012]; *Matter of Coleman v Fischer, 87*AD3d *778,*779 [2011]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied the right to call witnesses at the hearing. The inmate witnesses who petitioner requested signed refusal forms that were provided to petitioner after the Hearing Officer personally confirmed that such refusals were genuine. Under the circumstances, petitioner’s right to call witnesses was adequately protected *(see Matter of Reynolds v LaClair,*89 AD3d 1338, 1339 [2011]; *Matter of Diaz v Fischer, 87*AD3d 782, 783 [2011]). Lastly, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Piper v Bezio,*81 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2011]; *Matter of Harvey v Bradt,*81 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2011]; *Matter of Truman v Fischer,*75 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Spain, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,David R. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|                     | /s/  DAVID  R. BROWN |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                     | David R. Brown            |
|                     | Chief Financial Officer   |
|                     |                      |
|                     |                      |
| Date:  May 14, 2004 |

 

----
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 726 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. RUBIO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary 

appropriations, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Decrease Spending 

5 Now Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED DISCRETIONARY AP7 PROPRIATIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the unobligated balances of 

9 discretionary appropriations on the date of enactment of 

10 this Act, $45,000,000,000 is rescinded. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 726 IS

1 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

3 Management and Budget shall determine which ap4 propriation accounts the rescission under subsection 

5 (a) shall apply to and the amount that each such ac6 count shall be reduced by pursuant to such rescis7 sion. 

8 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of 

10 the Office of Management and Budget shall submit 

11 a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and Con12 gress listing the accounts reduced by the rescission 

13 in subsection (a) and the amounts rescinded from 

14 each such account. 

15 (c) EXCEPTIONS.—The rescission under subsection 

16 (a) shall not apply to the Department of Defense, the De17 partment of Veterans Affairs, or the Social Security Ad18 ministration. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed August 9, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-18-00087-CR

___________

ZACHARY AARON NOEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16199

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, 

Zachary Aaron Noel, of the offense of escape while under arrest for a felony. The 

trial court held a punishment hearing and assessed Appellant’s punishment at 

confinement for eight years and a fine of $1,500. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The 

motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously 
2

examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, the 

motion to withdraw, and a copy of the appellate record. Counsel advised Appellant 

of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Appellant has 

not filed a response.

1 Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition 

for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

seeking review by that court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, 68.

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In addressing an Anders brief and 

pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause 

to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have 

independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and 

should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. Based upon a review of 

the record, we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.2

 

1This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response 

to counsel’s brief.

2We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.
3

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

August 9, 2018

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.

3

Willson, J., not participating.

 

3

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.