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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 616 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for an exemption of pharmacies and pharmacists from certain Medicare 

accreditation requirements in the same manner as such exemption applies 

to certain professionals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2009 

Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mrs. EMERSON, and Mr. 

WEXLER) 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 amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to provide for an exemption of pharmacies and pharmacists from certain Medicare accreditation requirements 

in the same manner as such exemption applies to certain 

professionals. 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 616 IH

1 SECTION 1. APPLICATION TO PHARMACIES AND PHAR2 MACISTS OF THE ELIGIBLE PROFESSIONAL 

3 EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN MEDICARE AC4 CREDITATION REQUIREMENTS. 

5 Section 1834(a)(20)(F)(ii) of the Social Security Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(20)(F)(ii)), as added by section 

7 154(b)(1)(A) of the Medicare Improvements for Patients 

8 and Providers Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–275), is 

9 amended— 

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘pharmacies, and phar11 macists,’’ after ‘‘eligible professionals (as defined in 

12 section 1848(k)(3)(B)),’’; and 

13 (2) by inserting ‘‘, pharmacies, pharmacists,’’ 

14 after ‘‘such professionals’’ each place it appears. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
*Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-50938

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE JUAN RAMIREZ-ORTIZ

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

--------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate sentence of the District Court is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to remand case to district court for resentencing is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to extend time to file Appellee’s brief 30 days from the Court’sdenial of Appellee’s motion to vacate sentence and to remand case

is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 AboveNet, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph P.
Ciavarella, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.





Date:  May
      11, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Joseph P. CiavarellaJoseph
      P. Ciavarella
                Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ’ §

RETIREMENT FUND and CITY OF § No. 1 99 , 2015

STERLING HEIGHTS GENERAL §

EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT § Court Below:

SYSTEM, derivatively and on behalf of §

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., § Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, §

§ C. A. No. 10249

- VCL

v. §

§

MELVYN E. BERGSTEIN, LARRY C. 

### §

GLASSCOCK, KAREN N . HORN, §

ALLAN HUBBARD, R E UBEN S. §

LEIBOWITZ, DANIEL C. SMITH, §

J. ALB ERT SMITH, JR., HERBERT §

SIMON, DAVID SIMON

, and §

RICHARD S. SOKOLOV, §

§

Defendants Below, Appellees, §

§

and §

§

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., §

§

Nominal Defendant Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: October 28 , 2015

Decided: December 16 , 2015

Before HOLLAND

, VALIHURA

, and VA UGHN

, J ustices ; WALLACE and WELCH

Judge s

,  constituting the Court en Banc

.

 Sitting by designation pursuant to Del. Const. Art. IV § 12.O R D E R

This 16th day of December 2015, the Court, having considered this matter on the

briefs and oral arguments of the parties, has conclude d that the same should be affirmed

solely on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery’s analysis

under Aronson v. Lewis 1 in its March 27, 2015 bench ruling and Order , and its conclusion

that six of Simon Property Group, Inc.’s ten directors were disinterested and

independent

. 2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HER EBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court

of Chancery be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

1 473 A.2d 805 (Del. 1984).

2 We note that the Court of Chancery made this finding during the course of its analysis under

Rales v. Blasband , 634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993), but it applies with respec t to its Aronson analysis,

as well. See Op. Br. Ex. A. at Tr. 73:14

- 17 (“The discussion we just went through does the vast

majority of the work for the analysis under Aronson , not surprisingly, since Aronson is a more

particularized version of the test.”)

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto VERA-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-40004

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*436Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Roberto Vera-Gonzalez presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by *United States v. Castro-Guevarra,*575 F.3d 550, 552-53 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 649, 175 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009), which held that the Texas offense of sexual assault of a child pursuant to § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (c)(1) of the Texas Penal Code is a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.2





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, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial 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/ John L. SkibskiJohn L. SkibskiChief Financial OfficerMarch 18, 2011
#### Roberts v. The State.

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. J. C. Richardson.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant in this case was indicted, tried and convicted for rape, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
# Statutes and Regulations

## Form I-9 Federal Statutes and Regulations

Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, requirements come out of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). IRCA prohibits employers from hiring and employing an individual for employment in the U.S. knowing that the individual is not authorized with respect to such employment. Employers also are prohibited from continuing to employ an individual knowing that he or she is unauthorized for employment. This law also prohibits employers from hiring any individual, including a U.S. citizen, for employment in the U.S. without verifying his or her identity and employment authorization on Form I-9.

The main statutes concerning Form I-9 process are:

Various federal government agencies that are part of the executive branch issue regulations that interpret and/or implement laws enacted by Congress. These regulations contain requirements and procedures that the public must follow and can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The following regulations govern Form I-9 requirements, employer sanctions, the employment authorization of aliens and unfair immigration-related employment practices:

## Title 8: Aliens and Nationality

Section Content: Part 270 - Penalties for Document Fraud
                    - § 270.1 Definitions
                    - § 270.2 Enforcement Procedures
                    - § 270.3 Penalties

Section Content: Part 274a – Control of Employment of Aliens

Subpart A - Employer Requirements:
                    - § 274a.1 Definitions.
                    - § 274a.2 Verification of identity and employment authorization.
                    - § 274a.3 Continuing employment of unauthorized aliens.
                    - § 274a.4 Good faith defense.
                    - § 274a.5 Use of labor through contract.
                    - § 274a.6 State employment agencies.
                    - § 274a.7 Pre-enactment provisions for employees hired prior to November 7, 1986 or in the CNMI prior to the transition program effective date.
                    - § 274a.8 Prohibition of indemnity bonds.
                    - § 274a.9 Enforcement procedures.
                    - § 274a.10 Penalties.
                    - § 274a.11 [Reserved]

Subpart B – Employment Authorization:
                    - § 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
                    - § 274a.13 Application for employment authorization.
                    - § 274a.14 Termination of employment authorization.

## Title 28: Judicial Administration

                    - Part 44 - Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices
                    - Part 68 – Allegations of Unlawful Employment Of Aliens, Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices, and Document Fraud

01/30/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Henry Warren *versus*Philip Coombs.

In a suit on two drafts, where the defence relied upon was usury, and the verdict was for a less sum than the amount due *j it was held,*that such verdict established the fact of usury.

A suit brought on two acceptances, in one of which more than legal interest is reserved, is within the provisions of the statute against usury, and the defendant is entitled to costs.

The facts in this case appear in the opinion of the Court.

*Rogers,*for the plaintiff.

*Hobbs,*for the defendant.

The opinion of the Court was by

Tenney J.

This suit is upon two acceptances. No defence was set up to one, but to the other the defendant introduced the statute of usury in reduction of damages. The verdict being for a less sum, than the • aggregate amount of the two, and it appearing by the pleadings that this defence was *145alone relied upon, we are to conclude, that the jury were satisfied that the statute had been violated. The only question before us is, how shall costs be awarded ? It is insisted, that, as one acceptance was free from any taint, under the general statute, the prevailing party shall recover his costs, and therefore the plaintiff is here entitled thereto. The language of the statute is, “ In a suit brought where more than legal interest shall be reserved and taken, the party so reserving and taking shall recover no costs, but shall pay costs to the defendant.” The verdict being taken for the plaintiff oil both acceptances, the suit thereon must now be regarded as entire. The provision of the statute, under which the defendant claims costs, is an exception to the general ride, and was intended undoubtedly as a penalty, to prevent the- reserving and taking-usurious interest, and is not to be evaded. Is not this a suit, . where more than legal interest has been taken and reserved within the meaning of the statute-? Wo think the case fairly finds that it is ; consequently we have nothing to do, but to give effect to the requirements of the statute.

*Judgment on the verdict without costs, and costs for• the defendant.*
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

EDISON LALIN,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0394

Enforcement Activity No. 7798226

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On November 15, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I

find that it is fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. 

§ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED the Settlement Agreement is 

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute 

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated this 8th day of January 2024, at 

Houston, Texas

______________________________

HON. TOMMY CANTRELL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) 

 

I, Steven B. Ratoff, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NovaDel Pharma Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary 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 this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) [intentionally omitted] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

| Date:  November 14, 2007 | By:    | /S/ STEVEN B. RATOFF                          |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | Steven B. Ratoff                              |
|                     |   | Interim President and Chief Executive Officer |
**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 Annual Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ho-Shang Lee,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of 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 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/
      Ho-Shang Lee


Ho-Shang
      Lee


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(chief
      executive officer)





June
      28,
      2005





This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



/s/ John K. PenverJohn K. PenverVice President of Finance, Chief Financial
Officer and SecretaryApril 27, 2010
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000032

23-MAY-2014

08:59 AM
Exhibit 23.1













                         CONSENT OF RICHARDSON & COMPANY


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8) (SEC File Number 333-62294) pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp's
1996 Stock Option Plan as amended in April 1999 of our report dated  January 31,
2002 with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  of Sonoma  Valley
Bancorp and Subsidiary  included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year
ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                         /s/Richardson & Company


Sacramento, California
March 25, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW 147278]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

April 14, 2000.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW147278 for lands in Campbell County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination. The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for 
rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, 
per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW147278 effective February 1, 2000, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

Mary Jo Rugwell,
Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 00-9952 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-M