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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4663 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit certain nurse 

practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and certified 

nurse-midwives to provide certain certifications with respect to inpatient 

hospital services under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2014 

Mrs. BLACK (for herself and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit 

certain nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and certified nurse-midwives to provide 

certain certifications with respect to inpatient hospital 

services under the Medicare program. 

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 ‘‘Protect Patient Access 

5 and Promote Hospital Efficiency Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4663 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING CERTAIN NURSE PRACTITIONERS, 

2 CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALISTS, PHYSICIAN 

3 ASSISTANTS, AND CERTIFIED NURSE-MID4 WIVES TO PROVIDE CERTAIN CERTIFI5 CATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INPATIENT HOS6 PITAL SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PRO7 GRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814(a)(3) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(3)) is amended by in10 serting ‘‘(or, in the case of such inpatient hospital services 

11 ordered by a nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, 

12 physician assistant (as such terms are defined in section 

13 1861(aa)(5)), or a certified nurse-midwife (as such term 

14 is defined in section 1861(gg)) who is privileged and 

15 credentialed at the hospital at which such services are to 

16 be furnished, the nurse practitioner, clinical nurse spe17 cialist, physician assistant, or certified nurse-midwife)’’ 

18 after ‘‘a physician’’. 

19 (b) NO EFFECT ON STATE SCOPE OF PRACTICE

20 LAW.—Nothing in this section, including the amendment 

21 made by this section, shall be construed as, or have the 

22 effect of, changing any State scope of practice law for any 

23 health care professional. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the MATTER OF: A.L., N.L. & E.L.

No. COA17-1298

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

AFFIRMED.
(108 So. 107)

No. 26247.

#### WALDAUER v. HARRIS.

(March 29, 1926.)

*(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.) •*

Appeal and error <&wkey;776 — Where plaintiff purchased judgment, it became extinguished by confusion, and appeal should be dismissed on his motion (Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2217).

Where plaintiff, against whom judgment was rendered, after appeal became purchaser thereof, judgment, in view of Rev. Civ. Code, art. 2217, became extinguished by confusion, and appeal should be dismissed on his motion.

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. H. Stephens, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Nettie S. Waldauer against O. L. Harris. Judgment in reconvention for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. On motion to dismiss.

Appeal dismissed.

Wilkinson, Lewis & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Thomas W. Robertson, of Shreveport, for appellee.

LAND, J.

Plaintiff instituted suit against • defendant to recover the sum of $3,484.15, alleging that said amount was the excess over the guaranteed price of $7,750, for repairing and remodeling two dwellings located on Common street, in the city of Shreveport.

*11Defendant in his answer denies that the plans and specifications relied upon by plaintiff were those used under the contract.

Averring the actual cost of all work done to be $11,234.15, because of certain changes made with the consent of plaintiff, defendant reconvened and prayed for judgment against plaintiff in the sum of $1,123.41, being 10 per cent, commission claimed by defendant on the cost of said work and repairs.

Judgment in-reconvention was rendered in favor of defendant in the sum of $775, and plaintiff appealed to this court.

During the pendency of .the appeal, defendant was adjudged a bankrupt.

Under an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, directing the sale of the judgment obtained by defendant, the trustee in bankruptcy sold the judgment to plaintiff at private sale, and said sale was duly approved by the referee.

Under this state of facts, plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case. It is our opinion that the motion should prevail, as the judgment, since the appeal, has been acquired by plaintiff, against whom it was rendered in the court below, and has become extinguished by confusion. R, C. C. art. 2217.

It' is therefore ordered that the appeal in this case be dismissed, at the cost of appellant.
Order filed April 1, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00229-CV

____________

AGAR CORPORATION, INC., Appellant

V.

ELECTRO CIRCUITS INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND SURESH PARIKH, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-20480

ORDER

According to the notice of appeal filed March 17, 2014, appellant is 

appealing an interlocutory summary judgment order signed December 20, 2013. 

Appellant asserts in its notice that the interlocutory order was made final and

appealable by an order of severance signed March 17, 2014. The clerk’s record 

was filed March 28, 2014, and it does not contain an order of severance. 

Accordingly, we issue the following order:
2

Appellant is ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

order of severance with the clerk of this court on or before April 25, 2014. If the 

record is not supplemented to demonstrate our jurisdiction as ordered herein, the 

court will consider dismissing the appeal. 

PER CURIAM
J-S33038- 14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. FRANK J. BOSLET, JR. Appellant No. 3153 EDA 2013

Appeal from the Order Dated October 8 , 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No: CP

- 45

- CR -0002748-2010
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON, and STABILE, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2014 Appellant, Frank J. Boslet, Jr., appeals from the Octo ber 8, 2013 order dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Re lief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541

- 46 (“PCRA”). We affirm. Appellant was convicted of DUI

– high rate of alcohol, 1 after a May 25, 2011 bench trial. On June 28, 2011, the trial court imposed a sentence of thirty days to six months of incarceration. The trial court deferred the sentence pending the outcome of Appellant’s direct appeal. This Court affirmed the judgment of sentence on June 21, 2012. The Supreme Court denied allowance of appeal on December 26, 2012. On April 11, 2013, the trial court issued an order dissolving an outstanding ben ch warrant and

____________________________________________ 1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b).J-S33038- 14

- 2 -

directing Appellant to begin serving his sentence. The trial court paroled Appellant on May 16, 2013 and his sentence expired on October 9, 2013, one day after the PCRA court dismissed Appellant’s timel y first PCRA petition. 2 Persons no longer serving a sentence are ineligible for PCRA relief. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(1)(i). This is so even where the petitioner files a PCRA petition while still serving a sentence. Commonwealth v. Hart , 911 A.2d 939, 942 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“As soon as his sentence is comp leted, the petitioner becomes ineligible for relief, regardless of whether he was serving his sentence when he filed the petition.”). As Appellan t is no longer eligible for relief, we affirm the PCRA court’s order. 3
Order affirmed.

____________________________________________ 2 Appellant styled the petition as one for PCRA relief or, in the alternative, a writ of coram nobis . Appellant’s brief does not contain any argument pertaining to the latter.

3 Appellant cites Commonwealth v. Turner , 80 A.3d 754, 764 (Pa. 2013), for the proposition that Article V, § 9 of the Pennsy lvania Constitution guarantees the right to have a Common Pleas court decisi on reviewed by an appellate court. While this is a correct statement of th e law, nothing in Article V, § 9 cabins this Court’s aut hority to affirm or reverse a Common Pleas Court order in accordance with applicable law. W e have afforded Appellant the review to which he is entitled, and co ncluded he is ineligible for relief under the PCRA.J-S33038- 14

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 8/25/2014
|   | (i) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April      13, 2009 |                                     |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                     |
| By                                   | /s/      Antonio Carlos Valente da Silva |   |
|                                 | Name:                                    | Antonio      Carlos Valente da Silva |   |
|                                 | Title:                                   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kevin ALEXANDER.

No. 2002-KO-3015.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Alexander, Kevin; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 01-597; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 02-KA-427.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4172 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4172

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify 
        when certain academic assessments shall be administered.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2014

Mr. Gibson (for himself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify 
        when certain academic assessments shall be administered.

    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 ``Student Testing Improvement and 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Prior to 2001, Federal law required States only to test 
        students once per grade span.
            (2) Following the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act 
        of 2001, Federal education policy has placed an increased 
        emphasis on testing assessments, requiring students to undergo 
        standardized testing every year in grades 3-8.
            (3) Reducing the frequency of federally required testing 
        would allow more time for classroom instruction, decrease the 
        burden on educational resources associated with testing, and 
        move our public education system away from the practice of 
        ``teaching to the test''.
            (4) The yearly testing currently required by Federal law 
        should be replaced with grade span testing.

SEC. 3. ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.

    Section 1111(b)(3)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (v)(I)--
                    (A) by striking ``except as otherwise provided for 
                grades 3 through 8 under clause vii,''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``and the achievement of students 
                against the challenging State academic content and 
                student academic achievement standards'' after 
                ``proficiency of students'';
            (2) by striking clause (vii); and
            (3) in clause (viii), by striking ``, (vi), (vii)'' and 
        inserting ``and (vi)''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.2



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



In connection with the Annual
Report of Telefônica Brasil S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alberto Manuel Horcajo
Aguirre, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: February 26, 2016
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|                       
|By:                    
|                       
|
**Exhibit 32.1**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Merisant Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”),the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Paul Block          |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Paul Block              |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | May 15, 2007            |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Series 25-2004 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and


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





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
Table of Contents

Exhibit 8.1

EXHIBIT 8.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF BRASIL TELECOM PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.

Subsidiaries of Brasil Telecom Participações S.A.

|                                                   |  |                              
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Nova Tarrafa Inc.                                  |  | Cayman                       
|Nova Tarrafa Participações Ltda.                   |  | Brazil                       
|Brasil Telecom S.A.                                |  | Brazil                       
|Internet Group (Cayman) Limited                    |  | Cayman                       
|BrT Serviços de Internet S.A.                      |  | Brazil                       
|14 Brasil Telecom Celular S.A.                     |  | Brazil                       
|Vant Telecomunicações S.A.                         |  | Brazil                       
|MTH Ventures do Brasil Ltda.                       |  | Brazil                       
|Brasil Telecom Cabos Submarinos (Holding) Ltda.    |  | Brazil                       
|Brasil Telecom Cabos Submarinos Ltda.              |  | Brazil                       
|Brasil Telecom Subsea Cable Systems (Bermuda) Ltd. |  | Bermuda                      
|Brasil Telecom of America Inc.                     |  | United States                
|Brasil Telecom de Venezuela S.A.                   |  | Venezuela                    
|iBest Holding Corporation                          |  | Cayman                       
|Opinia (Cayman) Limited                            |  | Grand Cayman                 
|Opinia S.A.                                        |  | Brazil                       
|Lokau México de S.A. de C.V.                       |  | Mexico                       
|iBest Espanha Award España S.L.                    |  | Spain                        
|iBest México Award Mexico S.A. de C.V.             |  | Mexico                       
|Freelance S.A.                                     |  | Brazil                       
|Internet Group do Brasil Ltda.                     |  | Brazil                       
|Brasil Telecom Comunicação Multimidia Ltda.        |  | Brazil                       
|Santa Bárbara do Pantanal S.A.                     |  | Brazil                       
|Santa Bárbara dos Pinhais S.A.                     |  | Brazil                       
|Santa Bárbara do Cerrado S.A.                      |  | Brazil                       
|Santa Bárbara dos Pampas S.A.                      |  | Brazil                       

---
#### Ex parte Brian D. JUDD. (In re Brian D. Judd v. David Lonnie Sandefer).

1012274.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 10, 2003.

Ralph D. Gaines III and Brian H. Tobin of Gaines, Wolter & Kinney, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioner.

David Lonnie Sandefer, pro se.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

JOHNSTONE and STUART, JJ., concur.

HOUSTON and LYONS, JJ., concur specially.

WOODALL, J., recuses himself.

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring specially).

Rule 54(d), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, provides:

> “(d) Costs. Except when express provision therefor is made in a statute, *costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party*unless the court otherwise directs.... ”

(Emphasis added.)

Rule 68, Ala. R. Civ. P. (“Offer of Judgment”), provides an additional basis for awarding costs by allowing *a nonprevail-ing party to recover some costs,*in the event that that party followed the procedure outlined in Rule 68 and “the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer” made by the nonprevailing party to the offeree. Because Rule 54(d) was not invoked as the basis for an award of costs, I concur in denying the writ.

LYONS, J., concurs.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alphonzo HARVEY

No. COA17-1246

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel WOLFE

No. COA17-909

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
William Barry FREEDMAN and Freedman Farms, Inc. v. Wayne James PAYNE and Michael R. Ramos

No. 183P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Randolph M. James, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Freedman, William Barry.

Melody Jewell Jolly, Attorney at Law, Patrick M. Mincey, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Payne, Wayne James.

Joseph L. Nelson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Ramos, Michael R.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of June 2017 by Plaintiff (William Barry Freedman) 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 17th of August 2017."
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A1 39 8 . ALDEN B. THOMAS v . THE STATE.

In No v em

b er 20 1 3
, a ju ry fo u n d Al d en B. Th o m as g u il t y o f rap e. Th o m as ’ s

co n vi ct i o n was affi rm ed o n ap peal

. See Cas e No

. A2 0 A0 7 84 (d eci d ed Sep t

. 4, 2 0 2 0 ).

In No v em

b er 2 0 2 1, T h o m as fi l ed a p ro s e “ M o ti o n t o Vacat e a V o i d

, I l l eg al

, an d

Un co n s t i t u t i o n al Sen t en ce.” Th e t ri al co urt s u b s eq u en t l y g ran t ed Th o m as ’ s m o t i o n fo r t h e l i m it ed p urp o se o f re-s en t en ci n g p u rs u an t Up t o n v. S t a t e , 3 5 0 Ga. Ap p

. 5 3 5,

5 3 9 -5 4 0 (3 ) (8 2 9 SE2 d 7 9 1) (2 0 1 9 ). In Feb ru ary 2 02 2
, co u n s el was ap p o i n t ed to

rep res en t Th o m as at t h e re-s en t en ci n g h eari ng

. On M arch 9, 2 0 2 2
, aft er t he h eari n g,

t h e t ri al co u rt re-s en t en ced Th o m as

. On Ap ri l 7

, 20 2 2
, Th o m as fi l ed a p ro s e n o t i ce

o f ap p eal fro m

t he am en d ed s en t en ce.

“ A cri m i n al d efen d an t i n Geo rg i a d o es no t h av e th e ri g ht t o rep res en t h i m s el f

an d al s o b e rep res en t ed b y an at t o rn ey , an d p ro s e fi li ng s b y rep res en ted p art i es are

t h erefo re u n au t h o ri zed an d wi t h o u t effect .” To l b er t v. To o l e , 2 9 6 Ga. 3 5 7
, 3 6 3 (3 ) (7 6 7 SE2 d 2 4 ) (2 0 1 4 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ). Here, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h at Th o m as was

rep res en t ed b y co u n s el at h i s re-s en t en ci ng h eari n g, an d n o t h in g i n t h e reco rd
i n d i cat es t h at th e at t o rn ey wh o rep res en t ed h i m at t h at t i m e ei t h er wi t h d rew o r was rel i ev ed fro m rep res en t i n g Th om as

. See W hi t e v. S t a te , 3 0 2 Ga. 3 1 5, 31 8 (2 ) (8 0 6
SE2 d 48 9 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (reject i n g d efen dan t ’ s arg u m en t t h at rep res en t at i o n t erm i n at es

u p o n en t ry o f

ju d g m en t an d s en t en ce an d h o l d i n g t h at i t co n t i n u es fo r at l eas t 3 0 day s aft er en t ry o f

ju d g m en t ). Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces , Th o m as ’ s p ro s e n o t i ce of a p p eal
i s a l eg al n u l l i t y

. See S

ob er a n i s v. S t a t e , 3 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 3
, 4 0 5 (8 1 2 SE2 d 8 0 0 ) (2 0 1 8). June 28, 2022Acco rd i ng l y , t h e ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 06/28/2022