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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 688 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply the additional 

Medicare HITECH payment provisions to hospitals in Puerto Rico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, 

and Mr. BINGAMAN) 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 apply 

the additional Medicare HITECH payment provisions 

to hospitals in Puerto Rico. 

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 ‘‘Puerto Rico Hospital 

5 HITECH Amendments of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF MEDICARE HITECH PAYMENTS TO 

7 HOSPITALS IN PUERTO RICO. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (n)(6)(B) of section 

9 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww) is 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 688 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘subsection (d) hospital’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘hospital that is a subsection (d) hospital or a sub3 section (d) Puerto Rico hospital’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Subsection 

5 (b)(3)(B)(ix) of such section is amended— 

6 (A) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘(n)(6)(A)’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘(n)(6)(B)’’; and 

8 (B) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘subsection 

9 (d) hospital’’ and inserting ‘‘an eligible hospital’’. 

10 (2) Paragraphs (2) and (4)(A) of section 1853(m) of 

11 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–23(m)) are 

12 each amended by striking ‘‘1886(n)(6)(A)’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘1886(n)(6)(B)’’. 

14 (c) IMPLEMENTATION.—Notwithstanding any other 

15 provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human 

16 Services may implement the amendments made by sub17 sections (a) and (b) by program instruction or otherwise. 

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply as if included in the enactment 

20 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

21 (Public Law 111–3). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.13

 

Axcelis Technologies, Inc.

Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation at March 11, 2015

 

This Exhibit discloses the current understandings with respect to cash compensation between Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) and each of its non-employee directors. Axcelis provides both cash retainers and meeting fees to its non-employee directors, as follows:

 

Annual Retainers (paid quarterly in advance)

 

	
Board Member Position
    	
 
    	
Amount
    	
 
    
	
Lead Director 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
50,000
    	
 
    
	
Non-Employee Board Member (not Lead Director) 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
30,000
    	
 
    
	
Audit Committee Chair* 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
15,000
    	
 
    
	
Compensation Committee Chair* 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
10,000
    	
 
    
	
Nominating Committee Chair* 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
7,500
    	
 
    


 







*                                         Retainers for Committee Chairs are in addition to the retainer payable to all non-employee Board members.

 

To the extent that other committees are formed by the Board, similar retainers may be approved for the committee chairmen.

 

Meeting Fees (payable quarterly in arrears)

 

	
Meeting Type
    	
 
    	
Amount
    	
 
    
	
In Person Board Meetings 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
2,000
    	
 
    
	
Telephone Board Meetings 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
1,000
    	
 
    
	
In Person or Telephone Committee Meetings** 
    	
 
    	
$
    	
1,000
    	
 
    


 







**                                  Committee meeting fees are paid only to committee members, and not to other Board members, attending committee meetings.

 

Non-employee directors also receive reimbursement of out-of- pocket expenses incurred in attending Board and committee meetings. Non- employee directors do not receive any Company-paid perquisites

 

1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10336

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALVARO ROJAS-VASQUEZ, also known as Julio,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-190-1

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alvaro

Rojas-Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Rojas-Vasquez has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15090]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-PBS-2021-03; Docket No. 2021-0002; Sequence No. 13]


Federal Management Regulation; Designation of Federal Building

AGENCY: Public Buildings Service (PBS), General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This bulletin announces the designation of a Federal building.

DATES: This bulletin expires January 17, 2022. The building designation 
remains in effect until canceled or superseded by another bulletin.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Services Administration, 
Public Buildings Service (PBS), Office of Portfolio Management, Attn: 
Chandra Kelley, 77 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, at 404-562-
2763, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6a5aea7a8a2b4a7e8ada3aaaaa3bf86a1b5a7e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0d060f000a1c0f40050b02020b172e091d0f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This bulletin announces the designation of a 
Federal building. Public Law 109-331, dated October 12, 2006, 
designated Building No. SC0017ZZ, located at 250 E North Street in 
Greenville, SC, as the ``Carroll A. Campbell Jr. United States 
Courthouse.''

Katy Kale,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15090 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-Y1-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Patricia Monroy, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 510]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 4, 2011, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered May 31, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that 34 RCNY 4-08 (h) (8) applies to the sale of food, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*536In this action, plaintiff food truck vendor seeks declaratory and other relief in connection with defendants’ enforcement against her of 34 RCNY 4-08 (h) (8) which provides that “[n]o peddler, vendor, hawker or huckster shall park a vehicle at a metered parking space for purposes of displaying, selling, storing or offering merchandise for sale from the vehicle.” Plaintiff concedes that the term “merchandise” may include food but maintains that the term, as used in the regulation, does not apply to food. While certain city regulations, such as those relating to licensing, distinguish between “food vendors” *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 17-306 *et seq.)*and “general vendors” *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 20-452 *et seq.),*there is no reason for the Department of Transportation, in enacting its parking regulations, to distinguish between different classes of vendor.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the regulation of metered parking is within the scope of the Department of Transportation’s authority *(see*NY City Charter § 2093). Unlike in *Good Humor Corp. v City of New York*(290 NY 312 [1943]), upon which plaintiff relies, the regulation at issue here does not prohibit all street vending, it merely regulates the ability to vend from metered parking spaces.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Renwick, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Exhibit
      32.1






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 Med-Emerg International Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
      Ramesh Zacharias 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 to the best of my knowledge:





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.





Dated:
      November 30, 2005





By:
            /s/
                Dr.
                Ramesh ZachariasName:
                Dr. Ramesh ZachariasTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
[No. 10568.

Department One.

August 19, 1912.]

#### Consolidated School District No. 105, Snohomish County *et al., Respondents,*v. Lizzie Jones, *as Superintendent of Schools of Snohomish County, Appellant.*
      *1*

Schools and School Distbicts—School Supeeintendents— Powees—Consolidation op Districts. In the absence of statutory-authority, the county school superintendent has no power to dissolve a consolidated school district, whether the consolidation was legal or illegal.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Snohomish county, Bell, J., entered July 13, 1912, granting an injunction as prayed for upon overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

Affirmed.

*Ralph C. Bell,*for appellant.

Reported in 125 Pac. 767.

Chadwick, J.

On the 20th day of July, 1910, School District No. 20 of Snohomish county, forming with other districts Union High School District No. 103, consolidated with School District No. 30 of the same county, which formed with the other districts Union High School District No. 100. The consolidated districts are known as Consolidated School District No. 105. The defendant, as county superintendent, has threatened to dissolve the consolidated district, for the reason that the two districts were consolidated without warrant or authority of law, and the present action was' instituted by the board of directors of the consolidated district to enjoin such threatened action on her part. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and the defendant electing to stand on her demurrer and refusing to plead over, final judgment was entered, granting a permanent injunction as prayed. From this judgment, the defendant has appealed, and by stipulation the appeal is submitted to this *538court on a transcript of the record and the appellant’s brief.

The question sought to be raised by the appeal is the right of two school districts, lying in different union high school districts, to consolidate under the law permitting consolidation in certain cases, but we do not think that appellant can raise that question. The two districts have been, in fact, consolidated, and we are cited to no provision of the law authorizing the county school superintendent to dissolve a consolidated district, whether the consolidation be legal or illegal. In the absence of a statute conferring such power on the superintendent, the district can only be dissolved by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction in a *quo warranto*or other appropriate proceeding.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question thus presented, the judgment must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Gose, Parker, and Crow, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302-2 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Altus Explorations Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mihcael Twyman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to s. 302-2 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

- I have reviewed the Report;
- based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the Report;
- based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report; 
- I and the other certifying officer:
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the Company;
have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly during the period in which the periodic Report is being prepared;
have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the Report; and
have presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required evaluation as of that date;

- I and the other certifying officer have disclosed to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function): 
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and Report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and

- I and the other certifying officer have indicated in the Report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

	/s/ Michael Twyman

	___________________________

	Michael Twyman

	Chief Executive Officer

	March 31, 2003
Order entered June 27, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00695
- CV
YURIDIA RAMOS AND MA RGARITA GALINDO, Appellant s V. ALEXANDER MYERS HANS EN, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001
- 02047
- 2012



### O RDER The Court has before it the clerk’s June 25, 2013 request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record because the appellants have not paid for the record. We GRANT the request and ORDER appellan ts to provide documentation that they have paid for the clerk’s record or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record within ten days of the date of this order. If appellants do not do so, this case may be dismissed without further notice.

/s/ ELIZABE TH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JUAN CARLOS SORTO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00030-1) Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 28, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa S. Costner, LISA S. COSTNER, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Juan Carlos Sorto seeks to appeal his convictions and 123-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of methamphetamine and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Sorto’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although notified of his right to do so, Sorto has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After conducting a de novo review of the record as required by Anders , we agree that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. We find that the district court conducted a thorough colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and properly ascertained that Sorto’s plea was knowing and voluntary. We also find that the court sentenced Sorto within a properly calculated Guidelines range, after granting the Government’s motion for a five-level downward departure based on substantial assistance. To the extent that counsel notes that Sorto voiced some concerns about trial counsel prior to entering his guilty plea, we decline to address any potential ineffective assistance of counsel claim as no ineffective representation conclusively appears from the record. SeeUnited States v. Baldovinos , 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 546 U.S. 1203 (2006).- 3 - Accordingly, we affirm Sorto’s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2385 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2385

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2005

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

                             July 21, 2005

 Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend by 10 years the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to 
            conduct the quarterly financial report program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEN-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO 
              CONDUCT THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM.

    Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ``An Act to amend title 13, United 
States Code, to transfer responsibility for the quarterly financial 
report from the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, 
and for other purposes'', approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97-454; 
13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking ``2005'' and inserting 
``2015''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Nathan ROLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Keith BICKHAM, Major; Johnny Gerald, Major; Wayne Kennedy, Sergeant Master; Eric Manning, Sergeant; Rick Warren, Lieutenant; Robert Tanner, Warden; B-Team Extended Lockdown Officers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-31134

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2008.

Nathan Rollins, Angola, LA, pro se.

Jennifer M. Medley, Office of the Attorney General for The State of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathan Rollins, Louisiana prisoner # 131530, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against various Louisiana Department of Corrections officers. He also moves for oral argument on appeal and for the exclusion of evidence introduced in the district court.

Rollins argues on appeal that the evidence does not support the magistrate judge’s determination, which the district court adopted, that Rollins’s excessive *24force claims against Officers Keith Bickham, Johnny Gerald, and Rick Warren were not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Rollins has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge’s factual and credibility determinations concerning these claims constituted clear error. *See Baldwin v. Stalder,*137 F.3d 836, 839 (5th Cir.1998).

Rollins does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the Washington Correctional Institute, Officer Robert Tanner, and Officer Wayne Kennedy for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the case of Officer Kennedy, as barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Accordingly, he has abandoned these claims. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED; ALL PENDING MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.