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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3795 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3795

To require notifications by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
 to Congress and to individuals of breaches of personally identifiable 
information of such individuals maintained, submitted to, or submitted 
 by a system maintained by Exchanges under the Patient Protection and 
              Affordable Care Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2013

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require notifications by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
 to Congress and to individuals of breaches of personally identifiable 
information of such individuals maintained, submitted to, or submitted 
 by a system maintained by Exchanges under the Patient Protection and 
              Affordable Care Act, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``One Hour Notification Act of 2013'' 
and as the ``OH No Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT RELATING TO BREACHES OF 
              PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION BY PPACA EXCHANGES.

    (a) Notification of Data Breaches.--The Secretary of Health and 
Human Services, following the discovery of a breach of the personally 
identifiable information of an individual that is maintained, submitted 
to, or submitted by a system maintained by an Exchange established 
under title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
Law 111-148), shall--
            (1) not more than one hour after the time at which the 
        Secretary is notified of such breach, notify the individual 
        that such information has been so breached; and
            (2) in a timely manner, notify the Committees on Energy and 
        Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Workforce of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committees on Finance and 
        Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that such 
        information has been so breached.
    (b) Annual Report.--Not later than January 1, 2015, and each year 
thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to 
Congress an annual report that identifies, with respect to the breaches 
of security described in subsection (a)--
            (1) all such breaches that occurred within the past year; 
        and
            (2) the security rules, standards, and risk mitigation 
        strategies implemented by the Secretary, as of the date of the 
        submission of such report, for the purpose of preventing such 
        breaches.
                                 <all>
```
exhibit10b-7.htm




Exhibit 10b-7


 


DESCRIPTION OF ANNUAL INCENTIVE GOALS ESTABLISHED FOR FISCAL YEAR

2011 UNDER THE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


 


     The Compensation and Management Development Committee of the Board of Directors of ArvinMeritor, Inc.(“ArvinMeritor”), established annual incentive goals for fiscal year 2011 under the Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended. These annual incentive goals are based on the levels of Adjusted EBITDA and free cash flow from continuing operations that are achieved for the year, measured against fixed target amounts. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as earnings before interest, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, non-controlling interests of consolidated joint ventures, loss on sale of receivables, restructuring expenses and asset impairment charges. Free cash flow is defined as operating cash flows provided by continuing operations (before restructuring payments) minus capital expenditures. The Compensation Committee also established target awards, stated as a percentage of base salary, for participants.


 


     Potential annual incentive bonuses are comprised of two components: one-half of potential payments is dependent on each of (a) the level of achievement of the Adjusted EBITDA targets and (b) the level of achievement of free cash flow targets. In addition, the final award calculation is subject to a modifier that is based on an employee’s annual performance rating. The calculated award may be adjusted up to +50% or -100%. The adjustment process maintains the original budget.


 


     To determine the amounts that are paid as bonuses, performance is measured against targets for each of the applicable components of the award calculation. For each part of the calculation for which performance exceeds that threshold, the portion of an individual’s target award that is paid out is dependent on, and increases with, the percentage of the goal that is achieved. The calculated payout, before any adjustments, for an individual cannot exceed 200% of his target award.
STATE of North Carolina v. Janely Higuera CARDENAS

No. 320P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2016.

Ms. Ann B. Petersen, Mr. Johnny S. Gaskins, Attorneys at Law, For Cardenas, Janely Higuera.

Mr. James R. Glover, Attorney at Law.

Ms. Olga Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of August 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4032 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4032

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 29, 2014

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Texas Invasive Species Barrier 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981.

    Section 5 of Public Law 112-237 (126 Stat. 1629) is amended by 
inserting after ``zebra mussels'' the following: ``and other fish, 
wildlife, and plants present in Lake Texoma that are prohibited under 
section 3 of such Act (16 U.S.C. 3372) or under section 42 of title 18, 
United States Code''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 28, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2015

No. 04-14-00558-CV

Edna A. MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CI-17102

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 On July 30, 2015, this court denied both parties’ requests for oral argument submission of 

this appeal and set this cause for submission on briefs on September 2, 2015. After further 

reviewing the briefs, this court’s July 30, 2015 order is WITHDRAWN. 

The parties’ requests for oral argument are GRANTED, and this appeal is set for formal 

submission and oral argument before this court on Thursday, December 17, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., 

before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Karen Angelini, and 

Justice Jason Pulliam.

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for appellant’s opening 

argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten minutes for appellant’s rebuttal. See 

4th TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 9.1.

If either party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify this court in 

writing within seven days of receiving this notice.

It is so ORDERED on November 20, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE WINFRED WOODSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-96-102-2, CA-97-674-2)

Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Winfred Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Woodson, Nos. CR-96-102-2; CA-97-674-2 (S.D.W. Va.

Mar. 3, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Avenger RIDGEWAY

No. 375P09-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Avenger Ridgeway, for Ridgeway, Avenger.

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of January 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Columbus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of January 2017 by Defendant to Supplement:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of January 2017 by Defendant to Amend:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
<PAGE>

                    [LETTERHEAD OF CRISP HUGHES EVANS LLP]



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We have issued our report dated July 23, 1999, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of South Carolina Community Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
and schedules included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
June 30, 1999.  We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration Statement of South Carolina Community Bancshares, Inc. and
Subsidiary on Form S-8, (File No. 333-31545, effective July 18, 1997).


                                  /s/ Crisp Hughes Evans LLP
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                   CRISP HUGHES & CO., L.L.P.



Asheville, North Carolina
September 22, 1999
Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136561 & (19) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PATRICK MALLOY, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellee,
 

v SC: 136561 

 COA: 280855 
 

WCAC: 06-000212 

DSI ACOUSTICAL COMPANY and 

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
 

Defendants-Appellees, 

Cross-Appellants, 

and 

CENTRAL INTERIORS, INC. and 

CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

Cross-Appellees,
 

and 

W&G, L.L.C., and AMERICAN GUARANTEE 

& LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY; 

MATRIX CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, 

L.L.C., and ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

 Defendants-Appellees, 

Cross-Appellees.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 30, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

2 

VACATE the order of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND this case to that court for 

plenary consideration. In particular, we DIRECT the Court of Appeals to consider 

whether, contrary to the WCAC’s finding, the testimony of Dr. John A. Sauchak, as 

found by the magistrate, supports a specific event injury on October 11, 2003. We also 

DIRECT the Court of Appeals to consider whether the WCAC misapplied its standard of 

review, MCR 418.861a(3), by neglecting to address the other evidence in the record that 

was utilized by the magistrate to find an October 11, 2003 injury date. See Mudel v 

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 462 Mich 691, 703-704 (2000). Finally, we 

DIRECT the Court of Appeals to consider the arguments raised by the cross-appellants in 

this Court and this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 (2008). 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting.) 

I dissent from the order vacating the order of the Court of Appeals and remanding 

this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the arguments raised by the crossappellants in this Court and this Court’s decision in Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich 266 

(2008). 

Because I dissented from the majority opinion in this Court’s decision in Stokes v 

Chrysler LLC, 481 Mich at 320 (Weaver, J., dissenting), I would grant leave to appeal in 

this case to consider whether a majority of this Court reached the correct decision in 

Stokes.

 CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., join the statement of WEAVER, J. 

0916 

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. 

September 19, 2008 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DELTON SCOTT STEVENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (7:90-cr-00310-GRA-1) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Delton Scott Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Delton Scott Stevens appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Stevens, No. 

7:90-cr-00310-GRA-1 (D.S.C. June 3, 2008). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
State of North Carolina

v.

Sethy Tony Seam

No. 82A14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 28, 2016

Charles H. Harp, II, Attorney at Law, Lexington, Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Seam, Sethy Tony.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

*ORDER*

The Court, on its own motion, orders that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the effect of *Montgomery v. Louisiana,* No. 14-280, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016, revised Jan. 27, 2016), on the proceedings in this case. The State's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days after the date of this order, and defendant's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days following the State's filing.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 28th day of January, 2016.
H. R. 4076 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane and other 

home heating fuels in the United States, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Home Heating Emergency Assistance Through Transportation Act of 2014’’ or the ‘‘HHEATT Act 

of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

a covered emergency exemption issued by the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration shall remain in effect until May 31, 2014, 

unless the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the 

Governors of affected States, determines that the emergency for 

which the exemption was provided ends before that date. 

(b) COVERED EMERGENCY EXEMPTION DEFINED.—In this section, 

the term ‘‘covered emergency exemption’’ means an exemption 

issued under section 390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 

or extended under section 390.25 of such title that— 

(1) was issued or extended during the period beginning 

on February 5, 2014, and ending on the date of enactment 

of this Act; and 

(2) provided regulatory relief for commercial motor vehicle 

operations providing direct assistance supporting the delivery 

of propane and home heating fuels. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection (a) may 

be construed to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from issuing or extending a covered emergency exemption 

beyond May 31, 2014, under other Federal law. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
STATE of North Carolina v. Earl James WATSON

No. 387P05-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Learner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Mary March Exum, Attorney at Law, for Watson, Earl James.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of January 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th of January 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Catawba County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4067 

AN ACT 

To provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction 

on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic 

services in critical access and small rural hospitals 

through 2014. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4067 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENFORCEMENT INSTRUCTION 

2 ON SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR OUT3 PATIENT THERAPEUTIC SERVICES IN CRIT4 ICAL ACCESS AND SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS 

5 THROUGH 2014. 

6 The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

7 continue to apply through calendar year 2014 the enforce8 ment instruction described in the notice of the Centers for 

9 Medicare & Medicaid Services entitled ‘‘Enforcement In10 struction on Supervision Requirements for Outpatient 

11 Therapeutic Services in Critical Access and Small Rural 

12 Hospitals for CY 2013’’, dated November 1, 2012 (pro13 viding for an exception to the restatement and clarification 

14 under the final rulemaking changes to the Medicare hos15 pital outpatient prospective payment system and calendar 

16 year 2009 payment rates (published in the Federal Reg17 ister on November 18, 2008, 73 Fed. Reg. 68702 through 

18 68704) with respect to requirements for direct supervision 

19 by physicians for therapeutic hospital outpatient services). 

Passed the House of Representatives September 9, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4067 

AN ACT 

To provide for the extension of the enforcement insmall rural hospitals through 2014. patient therapeutic services in critical access and struction on supervision requirements for out-
Catawba County, by and through its Child Support Agency, ex rel. Shawna Rackley v. Jason Loggins

No. 152PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

J. David Abernethy, Attorney at Law, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency), et al.

Blair E. Cody, III, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Loggins, Jason.

David W. Hood, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency).

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Benjamin J. Kull, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff (Catawba County) on the 25th of April 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of May 2016 by Plaintiff (Catawba County) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."

*210Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
Corey Scott HART v. James Patrick BRIENZA and Gaston County

No. 184P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016.

Martha Raymond Thompson, Attorney at Law, Gastonia, Ryan L. Bostic, Attorney at Law, for Brienza, James Patrick.

Jason E. Taylor, Attorney at Law, Hickory, Lawrence Brian Serbin, Attorney at Law, for Hart, Corey Scott.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of May 2016 by Defendant (James Patrick Brienza) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."