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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1471

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from treating

any Medicaid-related funds recovered as part of State litigation from

one or more tobacco companies as an overpayment under the Medicaid

Program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services

from treating any Medicaid-related funds recovered as

part of State litigation from one or more tobacco companies as an overpayment under the Medicaid Program.

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

•S 1471 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREATING ANY MEDICAID-RE2 LATED FUNDS RECOVERED FROM ONE OR

3 MORE TOBACCO COMPANIES AS AN OVER4 PAYMENT.

5 (a) PROHIBITION ON TREATMENT AS OVERPAY6 MENT.—Section 1903(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42

7 U.S.C. 1396b(d)(3)) is amended—

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ before ‘‘The’’; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(B) Subparagraph (A) and paragraph (2)(B) shall

11 not apply to any amount recovered or paid to a State as

12 part of a settlement or judgment reached in litigation initi13 ated or pursued by a State against one or more manufac14 turers of tobacco products, as defined in section 5702(d)

15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.’’.

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

17 subsection (a) applies to amounts recovered or paid to a

18 State before, on, or after the date of enactment of this

19 Act.

Æ
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





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 filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) by CNS
Response, Inc. (the “Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies
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
      Registrant.




Date:  December
      29, 2009
            /s/ George CarpenterGeorge
      CarpenterChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial
    Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
CNS Response, Inc. and will be retained by CNS Response, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY BERNARD HALL,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-56135

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02858-VAPAGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 7, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rodney Hall appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition (Petition) as untimely. 

The district court concluded that Hall failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that

FILED

SEP 02 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
his medical conditions justify equitable tolling to excuse the late filing of the

Petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of

this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on

appeal. We affirm. 

 The district court correctly concluded that Hall did not meet his burden to

demonstrate that his medical conditions justify equitable tolling. Although Hall’s

medical conditions rendered him incapacitated for some portions of the relevant

time period, Hall did not show that his conditions caused the untimeliness and

made it impossible to file the Petition on time. See Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d

952, 959 (9th Cir. 2010); Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Although the record shows that Hall periodically experienced severe pain that

incapacitated him and disrupted his daily activities, the record does not show that

Hall continuously experienced such severe pain. Moreover, there are several

months during the relevant period of time for which there is no evidence in the

record of medical issues, much less medical issues that made it impossible to file

the Petition on time. The record reflects that there was adequate time for Hall to

timely file the Petition, despite his incapacitation for 155 days during the relevant

period. 

2
Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that Hall was not

entitled to equitable tolling because he did not meet his burden to show that his

medical conditions were the cause of the untimely filing. See Porter, 620 F.3d at 

959; Spitsyn, 345 F.3d at 799.1

AFFIRMED.

1

 Hall requests that the panel take judicial notice of additional medical

records covering the period from July to November 2006, and early December

2006 to April 2007. We deny the request for judicial notice as moot, in light of the

district court’s August 5, 2014 order granting Hall’s request for a statement of

position, and its review of those medical records.

3
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1374

To clarify that unmarried adult children of Vietnamese reeducation camp

internees are eligible for refugee status under the Orderly Departure Program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 5, 1997

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

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To clarify that unmarried adult children of Vietnamese reeducation camp internees are eligible for refugee status

under the Orderly Departure Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUGEE STATUS.

4 Section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Fi5 nancing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997

6 (Public Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–171) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘For purposes’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of

10 law, for purposes’’; and
2

•S 1374 IS

1 (B) by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1997’’ and in2 serting ‘‘fiscal years 1997 and 1998’’; and

3 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol4 lows:

5 ‘‘(b) ALIENS COVERED.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.— An alien described in this

7 subsection is an alien who—

8 ‘‘(A) is the son or daughter of a qualified

9 national;

10 ‘‘(B) is 21 years of age or older; and

11 ‘‘(C) was unmarried as of the date of ac12 ceptance of the alien’s parent for resettlement

13 under the Orderly Departure Program.

14 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED NATIONAL.—For purposes of

15 paragraph (1), the term ‘qualified national’ means a

16 national of Vietnam who—

17 ‘‘(A)(i) was formerly interned in a reeduca18 tion camp in Vietnam by the Government of the

19 Socialist Republic of Vietnam; or

20 ‘‘(ii) is the widow or widower of an individ21 ual described in clause (i); and

22 ‘‘(B)(i) qualified for refugee processing

23 under the reeducation camp internees subpro24 gram of the Orderly Departure Program; and
3

•S 1374 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) on or after April 1, 1995, is accept2 ed—

3 ‘‘(I) for resettlement as a refugee; or

4 ‘‘(II) for admission as an immigrant

5 under the Orderly Departure Program.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JERRY L FEND., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

6: 14-cv-00821-TC 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

On May 19, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the final decision of the 

Commissioner. (ECF No. 1) After defendant filed an answer to the complaint (ECF No. 10), 

Plaintiffs counsel, Richard McGinty filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. (ECF 

No. 12) The Court granted the motion to withdraw as counsel on January 29, 2015, allowed 

plaintiff 30 days to retain new counsel and ordered plaintiff to file a status report by March 2, 

2015 in which he identifies new counsel or informs the court that he intends to proceed pro se. 

(ECF No. 14) The court also vacated all other pending deadlines with the intention of resetting 

the deadlines after plaintiffs new counsel appeared or plaintiff informed the court that he 

intended to proceed pro se. A paper copy of the order was mailed to plaintiff at his last known 

address. (ECF No. 15) 

After plaintiff failed to respond to the order issued on January 29, 2015, the court issued 

an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to follow a court order 

and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 16) A paper copy was mailed to plaintiffs last known 

address. (ECF No. 17) To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 1 

Case 6:14-cv-00821-TC Document 19 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 2
Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for failure to follow a court order and 

failure to prosecute. 

The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District 

Judge for review. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen days after the date this order 

is filed. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). If no objections are filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under 

advisement on that date. If objections are filed, any party may file a response within fourteen 

days after the date the objections are filed. Review of the Findings and Recommendation will go 

under advisement when the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier. 

Dated this ~ day of August 2015. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE2 

Case 6:14-cv-00821-TC Document 19 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         865,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 786,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        438,094
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     313,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   786,629
<SALES>                                         84,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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
 Crop Production Systems Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About CPSRU
                        CPSRU Mission StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Production Systems Research People





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Unit Publication Lists with PDFs
- Contact Information
- Publications
- Publications - PDF Links
- Research Projects

Yanbo  Huang    Research Agricultural Engineer Dr. Yanbo Huang
**Dr. Yanbo Huang Research Agricultural Engineer Crop Production Systems Research Unit 141 Experiment Station Road PO Box 350 Stoneville, MS  38776 Office: 662.686.5354 / 662.686.3631 FAX:    662.686.5422 Email: Yanbo.Huang@usda.gov** Dr. Huang's research interests include: Aerial application (piloted and unmanned); Remote sensing for precision application (space-borne, airborne, and ground truthing); Soft computing and decision support for precision agriculture; Spatial statistics for remote sensing data analysis; and Image processing and process automation.


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 11The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per share:                   (Expressed in U.S. Currency)    Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30,  2005 2004 2005 2004Numerator:                Net Income (loss) $(174,997) $(682,281) $223,717  $(435,902)Dividends on Series A preferred stock  (772)  (770)  (1,535)  (1,540)                                                   Numerator for basic and diluted loss pershare loss available to common shareholders $(175,769) $(683,051) $222,182  $(437,442)                                  Denominator:                Denominator for basic loss per share-weighted average shares outstanding  13,820,396   12,228,892   13,816,146   11,826,778 Effect of dilutive securities  —   —   11,053   — Warrants  —   —   43,758   —                                   Dilutive potential common shares denominatorfor diluted earnings (loss) per share adjustedweighter-average shares and assumed conversion  13,820,396   12,228,892   13,870,957   11,826,778                                                    Basic income (loss) per share $(0.01) $(0.06) $0.02  $(0.04)                                  Diluted income (loss) per share $(0.01) $(0.06) $0.02  $(0.04)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company for the periods presented therein.
  /s/ ANDREW HAMERAndrew HamerVice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1953EA

_____________

Lawrence E. Tolerson, *

*

Appellant, * On Appeal from the 

* United States District

v. * Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Auburn Steel Company, Inc., *

* [To be published.]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 21, 1997

 Filed: December 4, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under Title VII in which the plaintiff, Lawrence

E. Tolerson, claims that the defendant, Auburn Steel Company, doing

business as Arkansas Steel Associates, discharged him on account of his

race.
The Hon. Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the 1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

The District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary

1

judgment and dismissed the complaint. Tolerson appeals. Having read the

briefs and heard oral argument, we are satisfied that no error of law has

been committed. We have nothing of substance to add to the thorough and

soundly reasoned opinion of the District Court, and we do not believe that

a more extended opinion on our part would have substantial precedential

value. Accordingly, the judgment is

Affirmed. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
6/30/2000 UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          84,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,170
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,963
<PP&E>                                         358,228
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,105,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          295,239
<BONDS>                                        639,275
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,975
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,105,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,922
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               151,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,720
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (156,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (156,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (156,458)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.24)


</TABLE>
Form of Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Form of Letter Agreement 
 CenterState Banks of Florida, Inc. 
 42745 U.S. Highway 27 
 Davenport, FL 33837 
 Gentlemen: 
 I understand that CenterState Banks of Florida,
Inc. (the “Company”) intends to apply under the provisions of the United States Department of the Treasury’s (the “Treasury”) Capital Purchase Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(“EESA”). I hereby agree that each compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit plan, arrangement and agreement (including golden parachute, severance and employment agreements) between the Company and/or any of its subsidiaries and me
is hereby amended for the period that the Treasury owns any debt or equity securities of the Company acquired pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement between the Treasury and the Company or the stock purchase warrant issued pursuant to the
Agreement, in order to comply with Section 111(b) of EESA as implemented by guidance or regulation thereunder. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  

	Signature of Executive Officer
	
	  

	Name of Executive Officer
	
	Date:             , 2008
#### In the Matter of Evan E. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Lasheen E., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Kevin E. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Lasheen E., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[943 NYS2d 782] —

In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an amended order of fact-finding and disposition (one paper) of the Family Court, Queens County (Richter, J.), dated May 20, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that he neglected the subject children, released the children to their mother’s custody with supervision by the petitioner for a period of three months, and ordered him to complete a parenting skills class.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the amended order of fact-finding and disposition as released the subject children to their mother’s custody with supervision by the petitioner for a period of three months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of supervised custody has expired; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court’s determination that he neglected the subject children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Paul J.,*6 AD3d 709 [2004]). The evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing established that the father was arrested and found in possession of cocaine while he was traveling with the children to an arranged drug transaction. The father’s conduct, placing the children in near proximity to narcotics, and *1115to the very dangerous activity of narcotics trafficking, posed an imminent danger to the children’s physical, mental, and

emotional well-being *(see Matter of Paul J.,*6 AD3d 709 [2004]; *Matter of Michael R.,*309 AD2d 590 [2003]).

The father’s remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.