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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3304 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the ability of veterans 

to electronically submit complaints about the delivery of health care 

services by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. WARNOCK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

ability of veterans to electronically submit complaints 

about the delivery of health care services by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Patient Advocate 

5 Tracker Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3304 IS

1 SEC. 2. SYSTEM FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF COM2 PLAINTS ABOUT THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH 

3 CARE SERVICES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 

4 VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

5 Section 7309A(c) of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following new para7 graph: 

8 ‘‘(3) Beginning not later than 18 months after the 

9 date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Director shall 

10 establish an information technology system that will allow 

11 a veteran (or the designated representative of a veteran) 

12 to electronically— 

13 ‘‘(A) file a complaint that will be received by 

14 the appropriate patient advocate; and 

15 ‘‘(B) at any time view the status of the com16 plaint, including interim and final actions that have 

17 been taken to address the complaint.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2


                            ALLEGIANCE TELECOM, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)
                      NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Number of         Percent
                                                                           Shares         outstanding    Equivalent Shares
                                                                         ----------       -----------    ------------------
<S>                                                                      <C>              <C>            <C>
Prior to Initial Pubic Offering
     1997 Common Stock Offering                                                 639            100.00%                    639

After Initial Public Offering
     1998 Common Stock Offering                                          15,000,000            100.00%             15,000,000
     Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                           60,511,692            100.00%             60,511,692
     1999 Common Stock Offering                                          21,041,100            100.00%             21,041,100
     2000 Common Stock Offering                                          10,703,109             87.58%              9,373,972
     Treasury Shares                                                       (327,495)            84.51%               (276,775)
     Warrants Exercised                                                     741,138             83.67%                620,077
     Stock Options Exercised                                                825,659             63.85%                527,188
     Cash in Lieu of Stock Split                                               (577)            78.51%                   (453)
     Employee Stock Discount Purchase Plan Shares Issued                    217,830             89.25%                194,418
     Common Stock Offering Issued for Business Acquisitions                 393,482             39.51%                155,461
                                                                                                             ----------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                                               107,147,319

NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK                                                                          $   (191,332,000)

NET LOSS PER SHARE, BASIC AND DILUTED                                                                        $          (1.79)
                                                                                                             ================
</TABLE>
exv4w1












	Altisource Portfolio solutions ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS A.S incorporated under the laws of
Luxembourg common stock this certifies that is the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES
OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $1.00 PER SHARE, OF Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. transferable
on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney,
upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless
countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. Witness the facsimile signatures
of the Corporation’s duly authorized directors. Dated: Authorized chaiman director





 









 









	For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall
be construed as though theywere written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:TEN
COMTEN ENTJT TEN- as tenants in common- as tenants by the entireties
- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- Custodian(Cust) (Minor)under Uniform Gifts to MinorsAct(State)
THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE, IN
EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, ORANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEEShares
of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of
substitution in the premises.Dated,SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.NOTICE:
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
GUARANTOR INSTIUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS
WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM ),
SURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
EX-35.3
(logo) Countrywide
HOME LOANS

400 Countrywide Way
Simi Valley, California 93065-6298

February, 29, 2008


Aurora Loan Services LLC
Attn: Jim Greene
10350 Park Meadows Drive
Littleton, CO 80124


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP,
Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer").
I further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating
to the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
(the "Servicing Agreement") that:

(a) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar
year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement has
been made under my supervision; and

(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material
respects throughout such year.


/s/ Joseph Candelario
Joseph Candelario
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration
February 29, 2008


(page)


Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)
Aurora Loan Services LLC

LMT 2007-5

LXS 2007-1

LXS 2007-10H

LXS 2007-11

LXS 2007-12N

LXS 2007-14H

LXS 2007-15N

LXS 2007-16N

LXS 2007-18N

LXS 2007-20N

LXS 2007-2N

LXS 2007-4N

LXS 2007-6

LXS 2007-7N

LXS 2007-9

SARM 2007-1

SARM 2007-2

SARM 2007-3

SARM 2007-4

SARM 2007-5

SARM 2007-7

SARM 2007-9
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-14363, 333-19141, 333-24329,
333-35701, 333-81783, 333-92711, 333-48376, 333-09090, 333-09092, 333-11036, 333-68218,
333-101048, 333-100733, 333-100730, and 333-100729 on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-91449 on
Form S-3 of our reports dated March 16, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Dendrite International, Inc. and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dendrite International, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2004.

|/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP              |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  | 
|Parsippany, New Jersey
March 16, 2005 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION   I, John E. Bailye,
certify that:  1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dendrite International, Inc.;  2. Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The
registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The
registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and  b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.   Dated:
  March 15, 2004By:
  JOHN E. BAILYEJohn E. BailyeChairman and Chief Executive Officer
0803-0919170-a Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors U.S. Bank National Association We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying  Report on Assessment of Compliance with  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)  Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Mortgage Backed  Master Servicing platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,  except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv)(xiii), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report.****Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management 's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination  included  testing of less than all  of  the individual asset backed  transactions  and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,   and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our  procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to  determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. Although  the Company is responsible for assessing compliance with Item 1122(d)(1)(ii) of  Regulation AB, there were no servicing activities performed by the Company during the year ended December 31, 2007, that required this servicing criterion to be complied with. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. ****0803-0919170-a 2 In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the U.S. Bank  Mortgage Backed Master Servicing****platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP March 3, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6376

SADAT MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00105-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: July 6, 2015 Decided: July 16, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sadat Muhammad Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, 

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sadat Muhammad Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

Abdullah has not made the requisite showing. Abdullah’s appeal is 

essentially duplicative of his appeal in Abdullah v. Clarke, 600

F. App’x 178 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-7830). Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00347

- CV

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' CIVIL

SERVICE COMMISSION ; City of San Antonio,

Appellants

v.

Gabriel SAENZ

, Appellee

Fro m the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CI04429 Honorable Angelica Jimenez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appella nt has filed a motion for a 30

- day extension of time to file a brief. We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief filed by August 10, 2022

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of July, 2022

.

_________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30638]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--HDP User Group International, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 30, 1995, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), HDP User Group 
International, Inc., an Arizona non-profit corporation, filed 
notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in membership. The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Amkor Electronics, Chandler, AZ; MCC, 
Austin, TX; Motorola, Schaumberg, IL; and Texas Instruments, 
Villeneuve, FRANCE have become members of HDP User Group International, 
Inc. Combitech, Jonkoping, SWEDEN; Digital Equipment Corporation, 
Maynard, MA; and ESEC, Phoenix, AZ are no longer members.
    No other changes have been in either the membership or the planned 
activity of the joint venture.
    On September 14, 1994, the HDP User Group filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the Act of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15306-07). The last 
notification was filed on February 27, 1995. A notice was published in 
the Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25251).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-30638 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### ZEYLAND McKINNEY and Wife, RACHEL McKINNEY v. H. M. MORTON and Wife, SALLIE MORTON.

(Filed 26 March, 1958)

Boundaries § 7—

Plaintiff may not take a voluntary nonsuit in a processioning proceeding.

Appeal by defendants from *Froneberger, J.,*at September 1957 Term, of Mitohell. ' .

Processioning proceeding for establishment of true location of-dividing line between lands .of petitioners and lands of respondents .as..set forth in pleadings filed'.

Petitioners were permitted to submit to judgment as of voluntary nonsuit. Defendants excepted thereto, and from judgment signed appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*B. W. Wilson, for*-petitioners, *appellees.*

*G.D. Bailey, W. É. Anglin, for defendants, appellants.*

PER Curiam.

Where, in a processioning proceeding, the only real controversy is as to the true location of the dividing line between the lands of the petitioners and of the respondents the cause should not be dismissed as in case of nonsuit. See *Cornelison v. Hammond,*225 N.C. 535, 35 S.E. 2d 633; *Brown v. Hodges,*230 N.C. 746, 55 S.E. 2d 498; *Plemmons v. Cutshall,*234 N.C. 506, 67 S.E. 2d 501, under authority of which the judgment of voluntary nonsuit entered, below is hereby

Reversed.
#### STATE v. WILLIAM YOUNG and NATHANIEL BRYANT.

(Filed 13 December, 1939.)

■Criminal Law § 80—

Where defendants fail to make out and serve tlieir statement of case on appeal, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss, made after expiration of the time allowed for serving statement of case, will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Oourt, No. 17, but when defendants have been convicted of a capital felony this will be done only after an examination of the record proper discloses no error apparent on its face.

MotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.

*Attorney-General McMullan for the State.*

Per Curiam.

At the April Criminal Term, 1939, Hoke Superior Court, the defendants herein, William Young and Nathaniel Bryant, were tried upon indictment charging them with: (1) burglarizing the dwelling house or sleeping apartment of one John Maultsby on the night of 24 March, 1939, then actually occupied by one Thomas Moore, and (2) the murder of one Thomas Moore. As to each defendant there was a verdict of guilty of burglary in the first degree, and guilty of murder in the first degree. Judgment was thereupon duly entered that each defendant suffer the penalty of death by asphyxiation, as provided by law. *S. v. Morris,*215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; *S. v. Mayes, ante,*542. From the judgment thus entered each defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Oourt and each was allowed forty-five days to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal. The solicitor was given thirty days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter-case. The clerk of the Superior Court of Hoke Comity certifies that the defendants have not perfected their appeal in said case as provided by statute. *S. v. Stovall,*214 N. C., 695, 200 S. E., 426; *S. v. Mayes, supra.*

The time for serving statement of case on appeal has expired. *S. v. Watson,*208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455; *S. v. Mayes, supra.*

As a careful examination of the record proper discloses no apparent error on the face thereof, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal under Bule 17 will be allowed. *S. v. Day,*215 N. C., 566, 2 S. E. (2d), 569; *S. v. Mayes, supra.*

Judgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.