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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2580 

To provide for a technical change to the Medicare long-term care hospital 

moratorium exception, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 29, 2015 

Mr. BOUSTANY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for a technical change to the Medicare longterm care hospital moratorium exception, 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 ‘‘LTCH Technical Cor5 rection Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CHANGE TO THE MEDICARE LONG7 TERM CARE HOSPITAL MORATORIUM EXCEP8 TION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 114(d) of the Medicare, 

10 Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2580 IH

1 1395ww note), as amended by sections 3106(b) and 

2 10312(b) of Public Law 111–148, section 1206(b)(2) of 

3 the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 (division B of 

4 Public Law 113–67), and section 112 of the Protecting 

5 Access to Medicare Act of 2014, is amended, in paragraph 

6 (7), by striking ‘‘The moratorium under paragraph 

7 (1)(A)’’ and inserting ‘‘Any moratorium under paragraph 

8 (1)’’ in the matter preceding subparagraph (A). 

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

10 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact11 ment of section 112 of the Protecting Access to Medicare 

12 Act of 2014. 

13 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION TO MEDICARE LONG-TERM CARE 

14 HOSPITAL OUTLIER PAYMENTS. 

15 Section 1886(m) of the Social Security Act (42 

16 U.S.C. 1395ww(m)) is amended by adding at the end the 

17 following new paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(7) TREATMENT OF OUTLIER PAYMENTS.— 

19 ‘‘(A) REDUCTION FACTOR IN ESTAB20 LISHING OUTLIER POOL.—Under the system de21 scribed in paragraph (1), for rate years begin22 ning on or after October 1, 2016, in adjusting 

23 the standard Federal rate for outlier payments, 

24 the Secretary shall apply a reduction factor of 

25 8 percent to establish an outlier pool. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2580 IH

1 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON PAYMENT

2 AMOUNTS.—In reimbursing outlier payments 

3 under such system for such rate years, the Sec4 retary shall structure pool payments such that 

5 the amounts paid in a rate year for outlier pay6 ments do not exceed an amount equivalent to 

7 99.0625 percent of the outlier pool established 

8 under subparagraph (A) for such rate year. 

9 ‘‘(C) WAIVER OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY.— 

10 Any reduction in payments resulting from the 

11 application of subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 

12 not be taken into account in applying any budg13 et neutrality provision under such system. 

14 ‘‘(D) NO EFFECT ON SITE NEUTRAL PAY15 MENT RATE.—This paragraph shall not apply 

16 with respect to the computation of the applica17 ble site neutral payment rate under paragraph 

18 (6).’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of J. Jerome Olitt, a Suspended Attorney.

granted and the Departmental Disciplinary Commit*328tee’s time to commence hearings enlarged as indicated. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Raymond L. DOW, Specialist Four, U.S. Army, Appellant.

No. 29,861.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Jan. 9, 1976.

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Johnny D. Mixon,*and *Captain Robert C. Mueller*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Captain Raymond Michael Ripple,*and *Captain William C. Kirk*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Two issues are presented by this appeal. The first concerns accused’s counsel. As in *United States v. Blakey,*1 M.J. 247 decided this date, we perceive no error in the trial judge’s advice to the accused regarding his right to counsel, and we discern no basis for a conclusion that the accused was denied effective representation because his civilian lawyer and appointed defense counsel also represented co-accused.

Regarding the second assignment of error, in his post-trial review the staff judge advocate recommended that suspension of the period of confinement adjudged at trial take effect at the end of 20 months instead of 21 months, the effective date provided in a pretrial agreement with the accused. The convening authority approved a suspension conforming to the pretrial agreement, without specifying his reasons for failing to accept his staff judge advocate’s recommendation. In *United States v. Keller,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 545, 50 C.M.R. 716, 1 M.J. 159 (1975), we held that an omission of this kind is error. How*251ever, as only 1 month of suspension is involved, we deem it appropriate, in the interests of conserving judicial time, to give effect to the recommended suspension rather than remand the record of trial for further proceedings. *See United States*v. *Cox,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 69, 46 C.M.R. 69 (1972). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Military Review, with the proviso that the order of execution reflect that confinement in excess of 20 months is suspended.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

Analex Corporation 

Under Contract No. NAS 10-02026 et al. 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 58419 

Jerome S. Gabig, Jr., Esq. 

Wilmer & Lee, P .A. 

Huntsville, AL 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Robert L. Duecaster, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Manassas, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 6 March 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58419, Appeal of Analex 

Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5721 

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

335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Frank F. Fasi Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2010 

Mr. DJOU introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, as 

the ‘‘Frank F. Fasi Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FRANK F. FASI POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 335 Merchant Street, Honolulu, 

6 Hawaii, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Frank F. 

7 Fasi Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5721 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frank F. Fasi Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Albert Lemishow et al., Respondents, v Alice Sachs et al., Respondents, and Ulises Giberga, Appelllant.

In a proceeding to validate a petition designating, *inter alia,*Albert Lemishow and Estelle Cooper as candidates for the respective party positions of Male and Female Member of the Republican State Committee from the 28th Assembly District, Queens County, in the Republican Party primary election to be held on September 15, 1987, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Le Vine, J.), dated August 6, 1987, which granted the application.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the application to validate the petition is denied, and the Board of Elections of the City of New York is directed to remove the petitioners’ names from the appropriate ballot.

Contrary to the petitioners’ present contention, the evidence presented at the hearing established that the appellant Ulises Giberga had standing to challenge the instant designating petition due to his status as a registered member of the Republican Party.

Moreover, the Supreme Court, Queens County, erred in validating the petition, as the cover sheet wholly failed to set forth, in an acceptable manner, the number of signatures for each of the candidates and the pages at which such signatures could be found *(see,*Election Law § 6-134 [2]; *Matter of Ruiz v Saez,*68 NY2d 154; *Matter of Pecoraro v Mahoney,*65 NY2d 1026; *Matter of Seely v Vann,*122 AD2d 919, *lv denied*68 *198NY2d 605). Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 13.2

CHINA MOBILE LIMITED

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, XUE Taohai, Executive Director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of China
Mobile Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 7, 2010



/s/    XUE TaohaiName:

XUE TaohaiTitle:

Executive Director, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or
as a separate disclosure document.



1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

U.S. Coast Guard 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CG-5800 (08/14)

Complainant: 

 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD 

v. 

Respondent:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

For Docketing Center Use Only:

Coast Guard Enforcement Activity Number:

1) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents upon the Coast Guard Representative (for example the 

Investigative Officer or Coast Guard attorney) to the address(es) listed below by:

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Insert name & address(es) of Coast Guard Representative(s) you sent document to

2) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the ALJ Docketing Center by: 

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

Mail FAX Express courier In Person Electronic Delivery

3) I hereby certify I have served the foregoing documents with the assigned Administrative Law Judge by:

Signature

Name:

Address:

Date:

Docket Number:

20 -

 

Privacy Act Statement 

 

The legal authority for the collection of information on this form is authorized by 46 U.S.C. Chapter 77 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20. The 

information provided will be used to advocate your position in this administrative proceeding. Unless part of mandatory discovery, 

submission of the information on this form is voluntary. You are solely responsible for the manner in which you want to present your own 

case. This document will become part of the official record, which can be viewed by the public. 33 C.F.R. § 20.903.
#### Anthony JACKSON, M.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 08-56758.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 25, 2011.

Walter Roberts, IV, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary Arnold Ostrick, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B. FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AMENDING

We grant appellee’s request to take judicial notice of the California State Bar Association records involving Walter J. Roberts IV. We deny as unnecessary the request to take judicial notice of the motions filed with the district court.

Judge Graber votes to grant the petition for panel rehearing in full. Judges B. Fletcher and Pregerson vote to grant the petition for panel rehearing in part, to the extent necessary to correct Roberts’s status, and vote to deny the petition for panel rehearing in all other respects.

In line two of page three of the memorandum disposition filed on February 18, 2011, the word “disbarred” shall be replaced with the word “suspended” to cor*671rectly reflect the status of Jackson’s former counsel. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc shall be entertained.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





/s/ H. Douglas ChaffinH.
      Douglas ChaffinChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      15, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 10, 2015

d0603 

# Order

Clerk June 10, 2015

149294(62)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149294

COA: 313758

Wayne CC: 12

- 006550

- FH

MICHAEL VERN VILLNEFF,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 5,

2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
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
 
 I,
        George
        E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
        of Stoneridge, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        the
        report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the second
        quarter ended
        June 30, 2008 (“the Report”) which this certification accompanies fully complies
        with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act
        of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
                  George E. Strickler
 George
                  E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                  and
                  TreasurerAugust
                  7, 2008
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
        Company
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5773 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5773

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the Federal building located at 6401 Security Boulevard in 
       Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the Social Security 
  Administration Operations Building, as the ``Robert M. Ball Federal 
                               Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The Federal building located at 6401 Security Boulevard in 
Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the Social Security 
Administration Operations Building, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Robert M. Ball Federal Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert M. Ball 
Federal Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5826 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of active 

duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs to include certain service in 

the National Guard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2010 

Mr. ALTMIRE (for himself and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the definition of active duty for purposes of the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs to include certain service in the National 

Guard. 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5826 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ACTIVE DUTY 

2 FOR PURPOSES OF POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL 

3 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OF THE DEPART4 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO INCLUDE 

5 SERVICE IN NATIONAL GUARD FOR CERTAIN 

6 PURPOSES. 

7 Section 3301(1) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara9 graph: 

10 ‘‘(C) In the case of a member of the Army 

11 National Guard of the United States or Air Na12 tional Guard of the United States, in addition 

13 to service described in subparagraph (B), full14 time service— 

15 ‘‘(i) in the National Guard of a State 

16 for the purpose of organizing, admin17 istering, recruiting, instructing, or training 

18 the National Guard; or 

19 ‘‘(ii) in the National Guard under sec20 tion 502(f) of title 32 when authorized by 

21 the President or Secretary of Defense for 

22 the purpose of responding to a national 

23 emergency declared by the President and 

24 supported by Federal funds.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
ContiFinancial Corporation
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Exhibit 12.1 of September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                              Six months ended
                                               September 30,
                                          1998       1997    Fiscal 98  Fiscal 97   Fiscal 96   Fiscal 95    Fiscal 94
                                                      
Summary:                              
<S>                                     <C>         <C>       <C>        <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>   
     Earnings                           (55,575)    178,782   385,425    297,677     197,996      77,895       42,334
     Fixed Charges                      121,522      76,362   165,904    120,636      74,770      29,635       12,124
                                        --------  ----------  --------   --------    --------    --------      ------
     Ratio                                -0.46        2.34      2.32       2.47        2.65        2.63         3.49
                                        ========  ==========  ========   ========    ========    ========      ======      

Earnings:
     Income (loss) before income taxes
        and minority interest          (175,440)    102,778   224,965    177,041     126,536      56,988       35,286
     Plus:  Interest expense            121,522      76,362   165,904    120,636      74,770      29,635       12,124
     Less:  Equity income in  
        unconsolidated subsidiaries      (1,605)      (358)   (5,444)          -           -           -            -
     (Less):  Minority interest             (52)      n/a       n/a        n/a        (3,310)     (8,728)      (5,076)
                                      ----------  ----------  -------    -------     --------     -------      -------
         Total "Earnings"               (55,575)    178,782   385,425    297,677     197,996      77,895       42,334
                                      ==========  ==========  =======    =======     ========     =======      =======

Fixed Charges:
     Interest expense                   121,522      76,362   165,904    120,636      74,770      29,635       12,124


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6037

DAVID COPPEDGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RON ANGELONE, Director of the Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-640-AM)

Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Coppedge, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Coppedge seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Coppedge v. Angelone, No. CA-01-

640-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED