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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1697 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1697

  To provide for the review and classification of physician assistant 
      positions in the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1999

Mr. Gilman (for himself, Mr. Oberstar, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, and 
 Mr. Inslee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the review and classification of physician assistant 
      positions in the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT POSITIONS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Physician 
Assistant Equity Act''.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the terms ``class'' and ``class of positions'' have the 
        meanings given such terms under section 5102(a)(4) of title 5, 
        United States Code; and
            (2) the term ``position'' has the meaning given such term 
        under section 5102(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code.
    (c) Review and Classification.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management shall--
            (1) review the classification of the position of physician 
        assistant, including the factors considered under section 
        5102(a)(4) (A), (B), and (C) of title 5, United States Code;
            (2) in conducting the review under paragraph (1)--
                    (A) solicit comments from physician assistants and 
                organizations representative of physician assistants; 
                and
                    (B) give specific consideration to--
                            (i) the private sector qualifications, 
                        requirements for practice, compensation, and 
                        experience of a physician assistant; and
                            (ii) the educational and practice 
                        qualifications required for the position of 
                        physician assistant, including national 
                        accreditation standards and State licensing 
                        requirements;
            (3) reclassify the position of physician assistant in a 
        professional class that is different from the class of 
        positions that include any nurse position or medical technician 
        position; and
            (4) make any appropriate adjustments in personnel and pay 
        administration consistent with the review and classification 
        conducted under this subsection.
                                 <all>
```
Judith Ann PAIXAO and Kevin A. Lombard, petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-216.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
W.A. GRIFFIN, petitioner, v. TEAMCARE, et al.

No. 18-232.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

I,P. Martin Daley, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Monaco Coach Corporation;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

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

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated: | August 10,  2004 |   | /s/:  P. Martin Daley                  |   |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                  |   | P.  Martin Daley                            |
|   |                  |   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory T. Donovan, do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Fund; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.         By:  /s/ Gregory T. Donovan    Gregory T. Donovan    Senior Vice President of Accounting and Finance
- 732 - D ecisions of the N ebraska C ourt of A ppeals 23 N ebraska A ppellate R eports YOST v . DAVITA, INC. Cite as 23 Neb. App. 732



### D ebra 

### Y ost 

### , appellant an d cross


### - appellee 

### , v



### . D avita 

### , I nc 

### ., appellee an d cross


### - appellant



### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 1, 2016. Nos. A-15-197, A-15-234, A-15-235.

supplemental opinion 

### Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court: D aniel 

### R

. F ri d rich 

### , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehear

ing overruled. Eric B. Brown, of Atwood, Holsten, Brown, Deaver & Spier Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Caroline M. Westerhold and Stephen J. Schultz, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., for appellee.
P irtle 

### , R ie d mann 

### , and B ishop 

### , Judges.
P er 

### C uriam



### . This matter is before the court on the motion for rehearing filed by Davita, Inc., regarding our opinion reported in Yost v. Davita, Inc. , 23 Neb. App. 482, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2015). We overrule the motion, but for purposes of clarification, we modify the opinion as follows: In the section of the opinion designated “ Increase in Incapacity ,” we withdraw the eighth paragraph, id . at 495, ___ N.W.2d at ___, and substitute the following: We also note that the compensation court made a fac

tual finding that the L2

- 3 level was not a pain generator Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 04/07/2016 12:10 PM CDT- 733 - D ecisions of the N ebraska C ourt of A ppeals 23 N ebraska A ppellate R eports YOST v . DAVITA, INC. Cite as 23 Neb. App. 732 

### based on an opinion by Dr. Cornett. Although Davita argues there was evidence to the contrary, we cannot say the compensation court was clearly wrong in determining that all of the pain Yost experiences in her back is, in fact, related to the work accident. And it is her back pain and limitations from her work

- related back injury that have exacerbated her depression symptoms to the point that she is unable to work. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opinion mo d ifie d



### . M otion for rehearing overrule d



### .
```

```

----

Updated October 12, 2012
```

```

----

Updated November 26, 2012
Randall Alan CARDER, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-8450.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

October 3, 2019

p0926 

# Order

Clerk October 3, 2019

157897 & (13)(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157897

COA: 342283

Wayne CC: 84

- 478796

JOHNNY FELIX HAILEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals and the motions to remand and for miscellaneous relief are

considered. We DIRECT the Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney to answer the

application for leave to appeal and the motions within 28 days after the date of this order.

The application for leave to appeal and the motions remain pending.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                          1,443,497
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   3,950,574
<ALLOWANCES>                     (172,001)
<INVENTORY>                    10,327,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               22,053,173
<PP&E>                          6,806,526                       
<DEPRECIATION>                 (3,451,281)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 46,481,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          27,592,653
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                    16,362,807
<COMMON>                            1,092
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   46,481,964
<SALES>                        36,515,628
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               36,515,628
<CGS>                          17,029,324
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  17,070,661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                642,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,773,394
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,773,394
<DISCONTINUED>                 (2,072,098)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (298,704)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.02)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Ditech Communications Corporation

|Subsidiaries of Registrant           |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Subsidiary's Business Name          
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Altamar Networks, Inc.               |  | Delaware                      |  | Altamar Networks, Inc.              
|Altamar Networks Pty. Ltd.           |  | Australia                     |  | Altamar Networks Pty. Ltd.          
|Atmosphere Networks Pty. Ltd         |  | Australia                     |  | Atmosphere Networks Pty. Ltd        
|Ditech Communications Europe Limited |  | United Kingdom                |  | Ditech Communications Europe Limited

---

QuickLinks
```
 
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 12/31/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       43,602
COMMITMENTS
   8,952    1,952    1,078   23,766   30,827   33,796   33,857    9,806    9,745

CHANGES FROM 12/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        181)
    -585      -17      387      997     -137      799      233     -618      -52

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    20.5      4.5      2.5     54.5     70.7     77.5     77.7     22.5     22.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       56)
      14        3        9       31       27       48       38
```

----

Updated January 4, 2013
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection  with the annual report of Bidville,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, Robert W. Pearce, Chief Financial Officer (or the equivalent
thereof) of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.





                              /s/ Robert W. Pearce
                              -------------------------
                              Robert W. Pearce
                              Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
                              March 30, 2004
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 Annual report of Airtrax, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert M. Watson,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Airtrax, Inc. and will be retained by Airtrax, Inc. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
                  May 3, 2007
              By:*/s/ ROBERT M. WATSON*
                
                Robert
                  M. WatsonActing
                    Principal Financial Officer
GTC TELECOM CORP.
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To  the  Board  of  Directors
GTC  Telecom  Corp.  and  Subsidiaries


We  hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-88521, 333-94969, 333-37496,
333-73614  and  333-81898) of our report dated August 25, 2005, appearing in the
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB of GTC Telecom Corp. and subsidiaries for the year
ended  June  30,  2005.



                   /s/ Squar, Milner, Reehl & Williamson, LLP



Newport  Beach,  California
September  28,  2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF REGENESIS HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                    1,297
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            61,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         80,458
<PP&E>                                   14,013
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          347,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    76,000
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  6,969
<OTHER-SE>                              264,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            347,471
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        160,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (145,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (145,100)
<DISCONTINUED>                         (145,100)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (145,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.21)
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 27, 2019

No. 04-19-00676-CV

IN RE Kristin KERBOW

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On October 3, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The real party in interest 

filed a response and relator filed a reply. After considering the petition, response, reply, and the 

record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on November 27, 2019.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of November, 2019.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019-CI-13768, styled In the Interest of L.J.K-B., M.J.K-B., and L.K.K-B., 

Children, pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. 

presiding.
JOSEPH B., petitioner, v. NEBRASKA.

No. 18-8864.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.