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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1248 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to repeal certain 

limitations on health care benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2013 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. HARPER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

ROSS, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. JONES, Mr. 

GIBBS, Mr. NUNNELEE, Mr. WOMACK, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. 

BROUN of Georgia, Mr. LATTA, Mr. YODER, Mr. BARR, Mr. COLLINS of 

New York, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia, Mr. 

JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. LONG, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. STUTZMAN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. BUCSHON, and Mr. HARRIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to repeal certain limitations on health care benefits. 

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 ‘‘Family Health Care 

5 Flexibility Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 1248 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MEDICINE QUALI2 FIED ONLY IF FOR PRESCRIBED DRUG OR IN3 SULIN. 

4 Section 9003 of the Patient Protection and Afford5 able Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and the amendments 

6 made by such section are repealed; and the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and 

8 amendments, had never been enacted. 

9 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE 

10 SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS UNDER CAFE11 TERIA PLANS. 

12 Sections 9005 and 10902 of the Patient Protection 

13 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) and sec14 tion 1403 of the Health Care and Education Reconcili15 ation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152) and the amend16 ments made by such sections are repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID CHAVEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73977

Agency No. A070-911-147

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 3, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

David Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from an

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and we grant the petition.

FILED

AUG 06 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The BIA erred as a matter of law when it applied the modified categorical

approach to conclude that Chavez’s conviction for petty theft with priors in

violation of California Penal Code §§ 484(a) and 666 constituted an aggravated

felony theft offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(G); 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 

California law does not require the jury to unanimously agree as to which of the

disjunctively worded forms of theft set forth in § 484(a) is the basis for the

defendant’s conviction. See People v. Fenderson, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17, 27 (Cal.

Ct. App. 2010); People v. McLemore, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 687, 689 (Cal. Ct. App.

1994). As a result, the statute is not divisible and the modified categorical

approach is inapplicable. See Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2282,

2285 (2013); Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077, 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Because the modified categorical approach does not apply and “a petty theft

conviction, under Cal. Penal Code §§ 484(a) and 666, is not a categorical match to

the federal definition of a theft offense,” United States v. Rivera, 658 F.3d 1073,

1077 (9th Cir. 2011), the BIA erred when it concluded that Chavez was removable

as charged under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(G) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 

 

2
Petition Granted.

3
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00165-CV

In the Interest of S.D. and I.D., 

children

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV-13-0953)

September 10, 2015

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
# C_2018079EN.01000101.xml

| 2.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8523 — BD/Bard)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 79/01)

On 18 October 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8523. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8523. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 5, 2012 

# Order

October 5, 2012

142936(54)

GALE BOERTMANN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 142936

v COA: 293835

Macomb CC: 2008

- 003332

- NF

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by Michigan Association for Justice for

leave to file a late brief amicus curiae is considered and it is granted.
SMITH BARNEY MANAGED GOVERNMENTS FUND INC.
(the "Fund")

Supplement to Prospectus
dated November 27, 1996
______________

	The following supplements the information contained in the Fund's 
Prospectus under the section entitled, "Investment Objective and Management 
Policies:"

	Zero Coupon Securities.  The Fund may invest in zero coupon bonds.  A 
zero coupon bond pays no interest in cash to its holder during its life, 
although interest is accrued during that period.  Its value to an investor 
consists of the difference between its face value at the time of maturity and 
the price for which it was acquired, which is generally at significantly less 
than its face value (sometimes referred to as a "deep discount" price).  
Because such securities usually trade at a deep discount, they will be subject 
to greater fluctuations of market value in response  to changing interest 
rates than debt obligations of comparable maturities which make periodic 
distributions of  interest.  On the other hand, because there are no periodic 
interest payments to be reinvested prior to maturity, zero coupon securities 
eliminate reinvestment risk and lock in a rate of return to maturity.

	Reverse Repurchase Agreements.  The Fund may enter into reverse 
repurchase agreements.  A reverse repurchase agreement involves the sale of a 
money market instrument by the Fund and its agreement to repurchase the 
instrument at a specified time and price.  The Fund will maintain a segregated 
account consisting of U.S. government securities or cash or cash equivalents 
to cover its obligations under reverse repurchase agreements with broker-
dealers and other financial institutions. The Fund will invest the proceeds in 
other money market instruments or repurchase agreements maturing not later 
than the expiration of the reverse repurchase agreement.  Under the Investment 
Company Act of 1940, as amended, reverse repurchase agreements may be 
considered borrowing by the seller.  

	Reverse repurchase agreements create opportunities for increased returns 
to the shareholders of the Fund but, at the same time, create special risk 
considerations. Although the principal or stated value of such borrowings will 
be fixed, the Fund's assets may change in value during the time the borrowing 
is outstanding.  To the extent the income or other gain derived from 
securities purchased with borrowed funds exceed the interest or dividends the 
Fund will have to pay in respect thereof, the Fund's net income or other gain 
will be greater than if this type of leverage had not been used.  Conversely, 
if the income or other gain from the incremental assets is not sufficient to 
cover this cost, the net income or other gain of the Fund will be less than if 
the reverse repurchase agreement had not been used.

	The Fund currently intends to invest not more than 33% of its net assets 
in reverse repurchase agreements.

___________________
Supplement dated January 28, 1997
FD 01256
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of the
Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the Smith
Barney Small Cap Value Fund (the "Fund") of Smith Barney Investment Funds Inc.
for the year ended September 30, 2000, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on
the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR,
not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.  Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control
to future periods is subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses under
standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.  A material weakness is a condition in which the design or
operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to
a relatively low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in
the normal course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted
no matters involving the internal control and its operation, including
controls for safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the
Board of Directors of the Fund, and the Securities and Exchange Commission and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these
specified parties.



New York, New York
November 13, 2000
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00004 - CR CECIL RAY MCDONALD A KA CECIL RAY TRIMBLE , APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 364th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2000 - 434,614, Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Presiding



### January 18 , 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and PIRTLE and P ARKER , JJ. Appellant, Cecil R ay McDonald, has filed a notice of appeal in this Court in which he again attempts to appeal his conviction for murder in trial court cause number 2000 - 434,614. A direct appeal from this conviction was disposed of on its merits by this Court by our opinion of August 29, 2007, in which we affirmed his conviction. See McDonald v. State , No. 07 - 06 - 00276 - CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7139 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Aug. 29,2

2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 1 Nonetheless, this is McDonald’s nint h attempt to perfect another appeal from this conviction. This Court has rejected his prior attempts, as has the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. 2 We again dismiss his purported appeal. As we have repeatedly stated in our prior opinions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second appeal from McDonald’s 2001 conviction. See McDonald v. State , No. 07 - 13 - 00438 - CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 586, at *4 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Jan. 17, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judy C. Parker Justice Do not publish.

1 Because McDonald ’ s first notice of appeal , sub nom , from his 2001 conviction was filed untimely, we dismiss ed his original appeal on that basis. See Trimble v. State , No. 07 - 02 - 00101 - CR, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 1656 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Ma r. 4, 2002, no pet.) (per curiam). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later granted McDonald an out - of - time appeal. See Ex parte McDonald , No. AP - 75,435, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 723 (Tex. Crim. App. June 14, 2006) (per curiam) (not designated for publication).

2 We d isposed of McDonald’s latest attempted appeal in McDonald v. State , No. 07 - 16 - 00430 - CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12779 (Tex. App. —Amarillo Nov. 29, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his p etition for discretionary review. Se e In re McDonald

, PD - 1413 - 16, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 365 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 29, 2017). The United States Supreme Court has also denied his petition for writ of certiorari in a prior appeal. See McDonald v. Texa s , 136 S. Ct. 72, 193 L. Ed. 2d 69, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 5227 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2015).
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 January 2006

(2006/C 8/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
Michael B. WHITE, Petitioner, v. Collene K. CORCORAN, Trustee, et al.

No. 18-9184

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
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 Quarterly Report of Performance Health Technologies, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert D. Prunetti, 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:





1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:   November
      19, 2008
                  
                  /s/ Robert
      D. PrunettiRobert
      D. PrunettiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.10.BI


 


8% CONVERTIBLE TERM NOTE


 


	
  $100,000

  	
   

  	
  November 21, 2003

  



 


ELECTROPURE, INC., a
California corporation, (the “Company”), for the value received, hereby
unconditionally and absolutely promises to pay to the order of ANTHONY M.
FRANK, or holder (collectively, the “Holder”), upon presentation
and surrender of this Note at its office at 23456 South Pointe Drive, Laguna
Hills, California 92653, or such other place as the Company may, from time to
time, designate, the sum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000), in lawful
money of the United States, on November 21, 2004, or if such day is not a
regular business day, then on the next business day thereafter (the “Maturity
Date”).


 


1.             CONVERSION.


 


The Holder of this Note shall have the right, at its option, at any
time up until 5:00 P.M. Los Angeles time on the fifth (5th) day immediately
before the Maturity Date (except that, with respect to any portion of this Note
which shall be called for prepayment, such right shall as to such portion
terminate at 5:00 P.M. Los Angeles time on the fifth (5th) day immediately
prior to the Prepayment Date (as defined in Section 2 hereof)), to convert all
or any portion of the principal amount of this Note, including interest accrued
thereon, subject to the terms and provisions of this Section 1, into common
stock of Electropure, Inc. at the then fair market value (closing bid price) on
the date of such conversion.


 


2.             PAYMENTS
AND PREPAYMENTS.


 


(a)           All
payments and prepayments of principal and interest shall be made in immediately
available funds on or before the Maturity Date to the Holder at 1 Maritime
Plaza, Suite 825, San Francisco, California 
94111.


 


(b)           The
unpaid principal amount of the Note from time to time outstanding shall bear
interest from the date of this Note at the rate of Eight Percent (8%) per annum
until paid.  Interest shall be computed
for the actual number of days elapsed on the basis of a year consisting of 360
days.


 


(c)           The
Company may prepay at any time in advance of the Maturity Date all or any part
of this Note, plus accrued interest on the portion of the principal being
prepaid.  Interest on the portion of the
Note prepaid shall cease to accrue on and after the date of such prepayment.


 


3.             NOTICES
TO NOTEHOLDER.


 


So long as this Note shall be outstanding, if the Company (i) shall pay
any dividend or make any distribution upon the Company Stock or (ii) shall
effect a capital reorganization, reclassification of capital stock,
consolidation or merger with or into another corporation, sale, lease or transfer
of all or substantially all of the property and assets of the Company to
another corporation, or voluntary or involuntary dissolution, liquidation or
winding up of  the Company, then in any
such case, the Company shall cause to be mailed by certified mail to the
Holder, at least fifteen days prior to the date specified in (x) or (y) below,
as the case may be, a notice containing a
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/17/14          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      456,312
COMMITMENTS
 146,146  193,711  101,680  184,210  133,948  432,036  429,339   24,276   26,973

CHANGES FROM 06/10/14 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -1,191)
   5,090  -20,652    4,884   -4,902   14,800    5,072     -968   -6,263     -223

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    32.0     42.5     22.3     40.4     29.4     94.7     94.1      5.3      5.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      219)
      73       87       84       42       43      160      178
```

----

Updated June 20, 2014