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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2126 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2126

 To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from replacing 
    ICD-9 with ICD-10 in implementing the HIPAA code set standards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

 Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, 
Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Tom Price of Georgia, and Mr. 
Roe of Tennessee) 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 prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from replacing 
    ICD-9 with ICD-10 in implementing the HIPAA code set standards.

    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 ``Cutting Costly Codes Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING REPLACEMENT OF ICD-9 WITH ICD-10 IN IMPLEMENTING 
              HIPAA CODE SET STANDARDS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services may not 
implement, administer, or enforce the regulations issued on January 16, 
2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 3328), the regulation issued on September 5, 2012 
(77 Fed. Reg. 54664), or any similar regulation, insofar as any such 
regulation provides for the replacement of ICD-9 with ICD-10 as a 
standard for code sets under section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and section 162.1002 of title 45, Code of 
Federal Regulations.
    (b) GAO Report on ICD-9 Replacement.--
            (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States, 
        in consultation with stakeholders in the medical community, 
        shall conduct a study to identify steps that can be taken to 
        mitigate the disruption on health care providers resulting from 
        a replacement of ICD-9 as such a standard.
            (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to 
        each House of Congress a report on such study. Such report 
        shall include such recommendations respecting such replacement 
        and such legislative and administrative steps as may be 
        appropriate to mitigate the disruption resulting from such 
        replacement as the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v David A. Rock, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 226]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered October 14, 2011 in Franklin County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of lewd conduct after he exposed himself to a correction facility nurse. Petitioner’s sole contention on appeal is that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses in support of his defense that the misbehavior report was in retaliation for complaints against the nurse. Although petitioner explained that he had previously requested that the proposed witnesses commence investigations into alleged on-going retaliatory conduct by the nurse, including this incident, there is no indication that an investigation into the current incident had commenced *(compare Matter of Diaz v Fischer,*70 AD3d 1082 [2010]). Furthermore, the record establishes that the requested witnesses had no first-hand knowledge of the incident *(see Matter of Tafari v Fischer,*93 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2012]; *Matter of Pante v Goord,*73 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2010]; *Matter of Trammell v Selsky,*10 AD3d 787, 788-789 [2004]). Accordingly, there was no error in the Hearing Officer refusing to call petitioner’s requested witnesses, and Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Peters, P.J., Spain, Malone Jr., Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33221(U).]
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
csv

      Max Water Temperature                    
csv

      Min Water Temperature                    
csv

      Ave Water Temperature                    
csv

      Flow                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Gage Height                    
json

      Max Water Temperature                    
json

      Min Water Temperature                    
json

      Ave Water Temperature                    
json

      Flow                    
json
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00713-CV

James C. Guzman and Gloria A. Guzman, Appellants

v.

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a/ The Bank of New York as Successor in Interest to

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., not Individually but Solely as Trustee for the Holders of Bear

Sterns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-2, Asset-Backed Certificates, 2006-2, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-14-002456, HONORABLE ORLINDA NARANJO, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on October 20, 2016.

The Clerk of this Court subsequently notified the appellants that the clerk’s record had not been

filed due to their failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the district court clerk’s fees for

preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that the appellants make arrangements for the

clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by December 2, 2016. Further, the

notice advised the appellants that their failure to comply with this request could result in the

dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. To date, the appellants have not filed a status report

or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If the trial court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to the appellants’ failure to

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellants were entitled to proceed without

payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, the appellants have not established that

they are entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145; Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.

Because the appellants have failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing

the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

__________________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: January 6, 2017

2
732 A.2d 1200

#### In the Matter of James Felix GERONIMO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 8, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 1999, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated May 17, 1999, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.

Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.
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
 Sunflower and Plant Biology Research: Fargo, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ETSARC Research Units
                        ETSARC Home page
                                    Office of the Center Director
                                    Location Support Staff
                                    Animal Metabolism-Agricultural Chemicals Research
                                    Cereal Crops Research
                                    Insect Genetics and Biochemistry Research
                                    Sugarbeet and Potato Research
                                    Sunflower and Plant Biology ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fargo, North Dakota Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center Sunflower and Plant Biology Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Sunflower and Plant Biology Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Shoreline Foundation, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W9126G-16-C-0045 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61753

Edward J. Laperouse II, Esq.

Laperouse, APLC Baton Rouge, LA Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Clark Bartee, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorney U.S. Army Engineer District, Galveston ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: April 23, 2019

Admimstrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61753, Appeal ofShoreline Foundation, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated: JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                                GARGOYLES, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended December 31,         Year Ended
                                              ----------------------------       November 30,
                                                 1996              1995             1994
                                              -----------      -----------      -------------
<S>                                           <C>              <C>              <C>
Weighted average number of common
        stock outstanding ...................   5,944,213        5,450,003        5,450,003


Common stock and common stock equivalents ...     273,525          257,075          257,075
                                              -----------      -----------      -----------


                                                6,217,738        5,707,078        5,707,078
                                              ===========      ===========      ===========


Net income (loss) ........................... $(2,794,008)     $(2,296,815)     $   298,862
                                              ===========      ===========      ===========

Net income (loss) per share ................. $     (0.45)     $     (0.40)     $      0.05
                                              ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Junal Jordan, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 108]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Roger S. Hayes, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered May 8, 2009, convicting defendant of two counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the court’s determination that, notwithstanding an identification procedure suppressed by the court, the victim had an independent source for his identification of defendant *(see Neil v Biggers,*409 US 188, 199-200 [1972]; *People v*Williams, 222 AD2d 149 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 1072 [1996]). The victim’s attention was drawn to defendant before the robbery, he observed defendant under good lighting conditions, at close range, for a significant period of time, and he gave a detailed description of defendant that included a distinctive physical feature.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters outside the record concerning counsel’s reasons for not seeking to reopen the hearing *(see People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Defendant was originally charged with two other robberies, and was identified by the complainants in those crimes in the same lineup employed in this case. Defendant argues that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to move to reopen the *Wade*hearing after new evidence — DNA evidence in one instance and the statement of a participant in the crime in the other — led prosecutors to dismiss the charges in the other cases. Even assuming that it would have been sound strategy for counsel to afford the court the opportunity to revisit the issue, defendant has not established a reasonable probability that pursuing this course would have led to suppression of the identification.

*641Independent source analysis turns on the particular circumstances under which a particular witness observed the perpetrator. Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, the demonstration that defendant was misidentified by witnesses to other crimes in a lineup common to this case does not compel the conclusion that the identification here was the product of undue suggestiveness. Indeed, in one of the dismissed cases, the complaining witness identified defendant in a lineup even though — unlike the victim in this case — she was neither exposed to a suggestive showup nor told, after picking defendant’s photograph, that she had picked out the suspect. This highlights that the identification in this case was not necessarily the product of unconstitutional suggestiveness. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES C.
§1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Novavax, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick W. Driscoll,
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




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




2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates
and periods covered by this Report.




By:
              /s/ Frederick W.
DriscollVice
      President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer





Date:
August 6, 2010
#### Cantalupo Construction Corp., Appellant, v 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 755]

—In an action for specific performance of an alleged contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated September 14, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was to remove a summary nonpayment proceeding entitled *2319 Richmond Terrace Corp. v Cantalupo Constr. Corp.,*pending in the Civil Court, Richmond County, under index No. 053889/10, to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, and to consolidate that proceeding with the instant action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to remove the summary nonpayment proceeding entitled *2319 Richmond Terrace*
      *707
      *Corp. v Cantalupo Constr. Corp.,*pending in the Civil Court, Richmond County, under index No. 053889/10, to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, and to consolidate that proceeding with the instant action is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the Clerk of the Civil Court, Richmond County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, all papers filed in the proceeding entitled *2319 Richmond Terrace Corp. v Cantalupo Constr. Corp.,*under index No. 053889/10, and certified copies of all minutes and entries.

Given the circumstances of this case, and in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to remove the summary nonpayment proceeding pending in Civil Court, Richmond County, to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, and to consolidate that proceeding with the instant action for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase the subject property *(see Richmond Amboy Realty, LLC v 3881 Richmond Ave. Realty, Inc.,*72 AD3d 783 [2010]; *Kally v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*44 AD3d 1010, 1010-1011 [2007]; *Morrell & Co. Wine Emporium v Richalan Realty Corp.,*93 AD2d 736, 737 [1983]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
BIG THOMPSON RIVER AT MOUTH OF CANYON NEAR DRAKELatitude: 40.422Longitude: -105.227Elevation: 5305.50

BIG THOMPSON RIVER AT MOUTH OF CANYON NEAR DRAKE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Park Site Page...



Willow Park
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27  Financial Data Schedule

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements at September 30, 1998 and 1999, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<S>                                    <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                 1,397,207               1,007,125
<SECURITIES>                                   0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             51,668                  19,918
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               78,452                  93,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,869,915               1,325,300
<PP&E>                                   147,742                 161,379
<DEPRECIATION>                            85,296                 116,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,957,076               1,418,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     26,597                  49,736
<BONDS>                                        0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                       0
<COMMON>                                   2,910                   2,925
<OTHER-SE>                             6,247,431               6,248,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,957,076               1,418,683
<SALES>                                3,355,778               1,333,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       3,355,778               1,333,947
<CGS>                                    532,201                 217,498
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          3,156,095               1,477,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         530,886                 458,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (258,975)               (547,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (258,975)               (547,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                       0
<CHANGES>                                      0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            (258,975)               (547,904)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (0.09)                  (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.09)                  (0.19)


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-1835

_____________________________

CLAUDIA GRANT,

Petitioner,

v.

ANEURIN GRANT,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

August 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Jerry L. Rumph, Jr., and Olivia M. Brooks of Brooks Law, 

Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
2

No appearance for Respondent.