alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration
 Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301)-443-1129. The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: Proposed Project: Grants for Hospital Construction and Modernization—Federal Right of Recovery and Waiver of Recovery (42 CFR, Subpart H) (OMB No. 0915-0099)—Extension The regulation known as “Federal Right of Recovery and Waiver of Recovery,” provides a means for the Federal Government to recover grant funds and a method of calculating interest when a grant-assisted facility under Titles VI and XVI is sold or leased, or there is a change in use of the facility. It also allows for a waiver of the right of recovery under certain circumstances. Facilities are required to provide written notice to the Federal Government when such a change occurs; and to provide copies of sales contracts, lease agreements, estimates of current assets and liabilities, value of equipment, expected value of land on the new owner's books and remaining depreciation for all fixed assets involved in the transactions, and other information and documents pertinent to the change of status. **Estimates of Annualized Hour Burden**
Regulation
Number of
                             respondents
Responses per
                             respondent
Hours per
                             response
Total burden hours124.704(b) and 707
20
1
3
60
 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Wendy A. Taylor, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. Dated: April 13, 2000. Jane Harrison, Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.


[FR Doc. 00-9756 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6170 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from precluding 

patients from entering into any contract with their health care providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FLEMING, 

Mr. PAUL, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. POSEY, and 

Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from precluding patients from entering into any contract 

with their health care providers. 

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 ‘‘Patient-Doctor Free5 dom Act of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6170 IH

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT OF CONTRACT WITH HEALTH CARE PRO2 VIDERS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

4 Human Services shall not preclude an enrollee, partici5 pant, or beneficiary in a health benefits plan from entering 

6 into any contract or arrangement for health care with any 

7 health care provider. 

8 (b) HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN DEFINED.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—In this section, subject to 

10 paragraph (2), the term ‘‘health benefits plan’’ 

11 means any of the following: 

12 (A) Group health plan (as defined in sec13 tion 2791 of the Public Health Service Act). 

14 (B) Health insurance coverage (as defined 

15 in section 2791 of such Act). 

16 (C) A health benefits plan under chapter 

17 89 of title 5, United States Code. 

18 (D) A multi-State qualified health plan 

19 under section 1334 of the Patient Protection 

20 and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18044). 

21 (E) A health plan offered under the Con22 sumer Operated and Oriented Plan program 

23 under section 1322 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

24 18042). 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6170 IH

1 (F) A basic health program established 

2 under section 1331 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 18051). 

4 (G) A qualified health plan offered under 

5 a health care choice compact under section 

6 1333 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18053). 

7 (H) Another health plan offered under title 

8 I of such Act. 

9 (2) EXCLUSION OF MEDICAID AND TRICARE.— 

10 Such term does not include a health plan partici11 pating in— 

12 (A) the Medicaid program under title XIX 

13 of the Social Security Act; or 

14 (B) the TRICARE program under chapter 

15 55 of title 10, United States Code. 

16 (c) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER DEFINED.—In this 

17 section, the term ‘‘health care provider’’ means— 

18 (1) a physician, as defined in paragraphs (1), 

19 (2), (3), and (4) of section 1861(r) of the Social Se20 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)); and 

21 (2) a health care practitioner described in sec22 tion 1842(b)(18)(C) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

23 1395u(b)(18)(C)). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Construing Felder’s pleading liberally, Gulf, Colo. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Bliss, 368 1

S.W.2d 594, 599 (Tex.1963), and in the interest of judicial economy, we will treat Felder’s

Motion for Leave to File Application for Writ of Mandamus and Petition for Writ of

Mandamus as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

 While Felder did not identify the cause, this Court affirmed Felder’s conviction in 2

Felder v. State, 2005 WL 1742928, July 25, 2005. Not published. 

NO. 07-07-0111-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 11, 2007

______________________________

IN RE NATHAN FELDER, RELATOR

_________________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Nathan Felder, has filed a Motion for Leave to File Application for Writ of

Mandamus and Petition for Writ of Mandamus in which relator requests this Court order 1

respondents, Terri Banks (Dallam County District Clerk), Luann Taylor (District Clerk),

Shelly Burnett (69 District Court Reporter), and Mike Carlisle (69 District Court Reporter), th th

to respond to Felder’s correspondence requesting a copy of the clerk’s record or,

specifically, “a complete copy of the Jury Empanelment list of the twelve jurors and the two

alternatives,” in the cause in which Felder was convicted. We deny the petition. 2
2

Felder’s “Motion for Leave” fails to establish his entitlement to mandamus relief. A

court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court

judges within the court of appeals’s district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction.

TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004). However, none of the respondents

identified by Felder are judges. As a result, the named respondents are not within our

jurisdictional reach and we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against them

absent a showing that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re

Cummins, 2004 WL 1948048, at *1 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.);

In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).

Felder does not identify how issuance of the writ of mandamus against the named

respondents would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 

As Felder’s Motion for Leave to File Application for Writ of Mandamus and Petition

for Writ of Mandamus does not identify any basis upon which this court would have

authority to issue a writ of mandamus, we deny the petition.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7239

JOSEPH A. LAYTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY, Secretary; SUPERINTENDENT NORA HUNT, 

Superintendent,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00530-CCE-JLW)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph A. Layton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph A. Layton seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Layton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pilar COLINDRES-CARIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41044

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

*443PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pilar Colindres-Carias (Colindres) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Colindres has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### *In re*APPLEGATE, Steven Dean

(MR 20961)

Anna, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and *678Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed. Respondent Steven Dean Apple-gate is suspended from the practice of law for three years and until further order of the Court and until respondent makes restitution to Monta Derossett in the amount of $2,000 plus interest at the rate of 9% per annum, compounded from November 30, 2004.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6422 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6422

 To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 with respect to current 
                              connection.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2010

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 with respect to current 
                              connection.

    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 ``Railroad Retirement Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR ESTABLISHING CURRENT CONNECTION RELATING TO 
              CERTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1(o) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 
1974 is amended by inserting ``the Department of State (in a position 
the Secretary of State certifies as railroad related),'' before ``the 
Department of Transportation''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to annuities payable for months beginning after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. EQUITABLE EXTENSION OF CURRENT CONNECTION.

    (a) Equitable Estoppel.--Section 1(o) of the Railroad Retirement 
Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231(o)) is amended by inserting ``An individual 
who, at the time the individual makes an inquiry to the Board, has a 
current connection shall not be deemed to have lost that current 
connection thereafter if the Board misleads or fails to properly inform 
that individual about that requirement and if that conduct by the 
Board, according to the principles of equity, should stop the Board 
from deeming the individual to have lost that current connection.'' 
after the first sentence.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to annuities applied for on or after February 3, 1989.
                                 <all>
```
----

**EXHIBIT      32-1**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350)**

|   | 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/                 Alex Hazan                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                       |   |
| Alex                Hazan                                  |
| Chairman of                the Board of Directors and |
| Chief                Executive Officer                     |
| November                16, 2006                           |

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6206 

To reinstate funds to the Federal Land Disposal Account. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Mr. HEINRICH (for himself and Mrs. LUMMIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reinstate funds to the Federal Land Disposal Account. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL LAND DISPOSAL ACCOUNT. 

4 Notwithstanding section 206(f) of the Federal Land 

5 Transaction Facilitation Act (43 U.S.C. 2305(f)), any bal6 ance remaining in the Federal Land Disposal Account on 

7 July 24, 2010, shall be reinstated and available for ex8 penditure in accordance with section 206(b) of that Act 

9 (43 U.S.C. 2305(b)), to remain available until expended. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
|   | (1)   The Report 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/ William Fasig       |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | William Fasig           |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   |                    |   |
|   |   | March 30, 2011          |   |
#### MATHUSHEK PIANO MANUF’G CO. v. PEARCE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

June 18, 1894.)

Receivers—Discovery oe Property.

Where a defendant, of whose property a receiver had been appointed, fails to obey an order to deliver to the receiver his books and papers, it is within the inherent power of the court to require him to submit to an examination in regard to such matter.

Action by Mathushek Piano Manufacturing Company against James Pearce. From an order requiring defendant to appear for examination, he appeals.

Affirmed.

For former reports, see 21 N. Y. Supp. 920, 921.

Argued before BROWN, P. J, and CULLEN, J.

J. H. Whitelegge, for appellant.

William A. Abbott, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

In this action a receiver was appointed of all the pianos received by defendant and in his custody, and of all contracts for the sale of pianos made on installments, and of all leases, and of all amounts uncollected thereon; and the defendant was ordered to deliver to the receiver all contracts and leases, and all books, papers, and accounts relating thereto. The defendant failing to deliver any books of account, he was ordered to appear for examination concerning the disposition of the pianos, and the amounts due from any parties thereon. From that order this appeal was taken.

We think that the order was properly made. The examination ■of the defendant was not that of a party, to the action, at the instance of his adversary, to be used as evidence; hence it was not necessary to set forth in the moving affidavits the statements required by the Code of Procedure to obtain such examinations. This ■examination was in aid of the receivership. It was necessary for the receiver, in order to properly perform his duties, to know where the pianos were, who had them, and under what terms, what amounts were still owing on them; and the court had the inherent power to direct the examination to give the receiver such information. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs •and disbursements.
exh10-61_16709.htm




EXHIBIT 10.6.1






 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 22nd day of February, 2010 by and between NEXX Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“NEXX” or the “Company”) and Arthur L. Keigler (“Officer”).


 


WHEREAS, NEXX and the Officer entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of May 13, 2002 (the “Original Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Original Agreement to provide for the vesting of  equity grants and restricted stock unit awards following certain termination events within one year following a “Change of Control” (as defined in the Original Agreement); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Original Agreement to providing for partial vesting upon a termination without Cause (as defined in the “Original Agreement”);


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt whereof are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.   ACCELERATED VESTING FOLLOWING  A CHANGE OF CONTROL.  Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Original Agreement, any option grants, restricted stock, and/or restricted stock unit awards granted to the Officer shall not vest upon any Change of Control but instead shall vest 100% upon any termination of the Officer’s employment without Cause or termination by the Officer for Constructive Termination if such termination occurs within twelve (12) months following a Change of Control.   Constructive Termination shall be deemed to have occurred if, following a Change of Control (a) there is a material diminution in your duties and responsibilities (other than a change of title), (b) your office is relocated more than fifty (50) miles from your office location at the time of the Change of Control, or (c) there is a reduction in your salary or benefits.


 


2.   ACCELERATED VESTING.  Notwithstanding anything else contained in the Original Agreement, an additional 12.5% of any original restricted stock options, restricted stock and stock unit awards granted to the Officer shall vest if the Officer’s employment is terminated by the Corporation without Cause, except that in no event shall more than 100% of any original stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units be deemed vested under the provisions of this Section 2.


 


3.   RATIFICATION OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT.  Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first written above.


 




 



	


NEXX SYSTEMS, INC.


 




/s/ Arthur Keigler





	
 


By:  /s/ Stanley Piekos








Name: Stanley Piekos








Title:  Chief Financial Officer