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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3778

   To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to make 
  premium and cost-sharing subsidies available to low-income Medicare 
part D beneficiaries who reside in Puerto Rico or another territory of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                March 8 (legislative day, March 7), 2022

  Mr. Menendez (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. 
    Booker) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to make 
  premium and cost-sharing subsidies available to low-income Medicare 
part D beneficiaries who reside in Puerto Rico or another territory of 
                           the United States.

    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 ``Territories Medicare Prescription 
Drug Assistance Equity Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATING EXCLUSION OF PART D ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS RESIDING 
              IN TERRITORIES FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR PREMIUM AND COST-
              SHARING SUBSIDIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860D-14(a)(3) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-114(a)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
        (i), by striking ``subject to subparagraph (F),'';
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(v), in the matter preceding 
        subclause (I), by striking ``Subject to subparagraph (F), the 
        Secretary'' and inserting ``The Secretary'';
            (3) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the following 
        new sentence: ``In the case of an individual who is not a 
        resident of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, the 
        poverty line (as such term is defined in clause (ii)) that 
        shall apply to such individual shall be the poverty line for 
        the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.''; and
            (4) by striking subparagraph (F).
    (b) Application of Medicaid Provisions.--Section 1935 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``subject to subsection 
        (e)'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1); and
            (2) by striking subsection (e).
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1108(f) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(f)) is amended by striking ``and section 
1935(e)(1)(B)'' in the matter preceding clause (i).
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on January 1, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
#### NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION, Petitioner v. EDGAR V. EDENS, Respondent.

(Filed 18 May, 1960.)

Appeal by petitioner from *McKinnon, J.,*October Term, 1959, of CUMBERLAND.

Proceeding in which respondent admitted petitioner’s right to acquire by condemnation an easement across respondent’s land for the construction of a pipeline for the transmission of gas. The only issue raised by the pleadings and submitted to the jury was: “What sum, if any, is respondent entitled to recover of petitioner as just compensation for the appropriation of their *(sic)*land, over and above all special benefits, if any, accruing to said lands, by reason of the appropriation by petitioner of the easement described in the Petition?” The jury answered, “$9,000.00.”

Judgment, in accordance with the verdict, was entered. Petitioner excepted and appealed.

*Sanford, Phillips, McCoy & Weaver for petitioner, appellant.*

*Clark, Braswell & Hill for respondent, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The case on appeal contains all or a portion of the testimony of two witnesses, one (Mr. Rose) for the respondent and the other (Mr. McCormick) for the petitioner. Indeed, nothing appears to show that any witness testified to the reasonable market value of *594the land covered by the easement or to the reasonable market value of respondent’s remaining land either before or after petitioner acquired such easement. Obviously, the bulk of the testimony offered at the trial does not appear in the record before us.

Petitioner’s three assignments of error relate to the overruling or sustaining of objections to certain questions asked Mr. Rose or Mr. McCormick. Particular discussion of these assignments is deemed unnecessary. Suffice to say, consideration thereof fails to disclose prejudicial error.

No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001059083
<NAME>                        NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.000
<CASH>                               3471
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       15771
<ALLOWANCES>                          747
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    21538
<PP&E>                              17350
<DEPRECIATION>                       7999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     137982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               11990
<BONDS>                            100000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                           2050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       137982
<SALES>                             81499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    81499
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    77621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   9525
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (5647)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (5647)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (5647)
<EPS-BASIC>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
Mr. R. B. kaol4y 

county aulitor collln county MoKlnnoy , Toao 

DOOF a&: aplnlon loo. O-512 

Ro: Should looal oc forolga oounty pay 

l o no ta b lS4oo ooo for l orr lnp rg wooo 

for Soro lgWun ntlO8? 

Tour roquoot for on oplnlon on the 4b0ro 

1. ~-,;ototaa quootlom bee bean roo4ltBd by thlo ofiloo. 

a0wt0 xii w0. 5, A0t0 0r a+00na c4iba 

&alom, @hh kgioloturo, 6ootiou 17b, rood8 la part 

40 tollwar 

al oolultloo rha-oln th4 l wnty cuil0~0 80llcbd in thi0 liot 

~4 l ~p0ti40ka OIL 

the baoio of an annual 8alary, the atato of 

Taxes ohall not be ohargeb wlth and rhall 

not pay my too or oommleolon to 8nfprwlnot 

ofrioor for a ny l 4rvi040 by him periorm0a, 

h t l 0iu 0rri04r oh411 b4 pa w th4 40uty 

out of th6 ~ri04r'O Salary Fmd, l UOh So48 

and om0l~o4lon4 00 u0tiia othorwloo bo pal& 

him by the Wats for 4uoh ooniwo.m 

a4 or0 ini~0i4a by th4 aomptr0l14r*o 0fri04 

that Collin Count ho8 ‘a population or 46,180 lnhabltanto 

l ooordlng to th4 1 eat F4aw01 04~8~4, tm4r0r4, kilrg 

one oi the oountieo In whioh ths oounty oirloiolo an 

l ompwootod on the bsoio of on l aual l olory. 

Thlo Xhportwnt ho8 rooently held in oplnlono 

Ro. O-133 4nd O-155 that when a oomtablo In on over 

oounty who romalno on a foe boolo and who r4oslt40 a 

aubp~em of mother eoMty to k oemod ln hlo proolnot 

should, upon the roooipt 0r a propor oartirio4t4 rm 

the foreign oounty, bo paid out 0r the (2lri00r*4 fJ414ry 

Fund 0r ills notiv4 oounty. 

The ab0Wa4Otloned artlolo by it8 tormo, 

provlU44 that 411 Se88 horotoforr pah by thb Etato ai 

Torso ror Oarrio4a rondorod ior preolnct orrlowa oholl 

horooitor be paid by the rounty out or tho.Mfloor~o 

. Salery Fund. 

In tinV of the io&41~ ot&ut40 4a4 4plolooa roforrod to, you ore rsepootfuUy mltlo)d Chat 

- it lo the oplnlod of thio Departmeat that 4 oonetobls 
/ 

. - - 

_ . 

e, R, RF D44*14f, hroh 23, 1939, -80 2 

im an ovu wanty who rwdM on a iw bole orad who 

te04lvoo a l abpoona fr4m anothor ooanty to b4 44rwd 

la hi0 gm4olnot, l honld apon th4 rwolpt of th4 propa 

44Ttlflo4t4 srosl 4 hr4lgm 4orllIty, be p4ia out OS $& 

oii14a~0 84lrry Ma of go nmtito l omy. 

mlotlngth4tth4 iorrg414g 4mw4ri yoarlnqairy,wo r4mlJi
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2221

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

DARYL E. SINGLETERRY,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.

Daryl E. Singleterry on brief pro se.

Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, and Margaret D.

McGaughey, Appellate Chief, on brief for appellee.

September 27,2001
Per Curiam. Daryl E. Singleterry appeals the

district court's denial of his motion to dismiss Count III,

a forfeiture count, in his 1993 indictment and to return the

forfeited money to him. Unlike the original judgment of

November 2, 1993, the amended judgment of July 30, 1998,

entered after remand from this court, did not reference

Count III. Singleterry argued that the amended judgment's

failure to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(2)'s

requirement that "a final order of forfeiture shall be made

part of the sentence and included in the judgment" revived

his opportunity to challenge the forfeiture count. He

claimed that, because the forfeiture count was not mentioned

in the amended judgment, that count must be dismissed. But,

he offers no supporting case law for that proposition.

We find neither error of law nor abuse of

discretion in the district court's denial of Singleterry's

motion to dismiss Count III. Nothing about Count III was in

dispute either before or after entry of the amended

judgment. Neither party raised any issue regarding Count

III on remand. And, there is no evidence that the district

court intended on remand to effect any change regarding that

count. From aught that appears, the failure to reference

Count III in the amended judgment of July 1998 was simply a
-3-

clerical oversight in the preparation of the amended

judgment. Such an mistake is subject to correction pursuant

to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 Cf. United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d

449, 464 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding nothing objectionable

about a nunc pro tunc amendment to the judgment referencing

the forfeiture).

The district court's denial of the motion to

dismiss Count III is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF MARCH
31, 2000, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF INTEGRATED INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC, FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                              555
<SECURITIES>                                      65096
<RECEIVABLES>                                     11642
<ALLOWANCES>                                       2000
<INVENTORY>                                          56
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1907
<PP&E>                                            24426
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3771
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   101832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              9714
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             20
<OTHER-SE>                                        85747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     101832
<SALES>                                           25835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  25835
<CGS>                                             14328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     32296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (5484)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5484)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.30)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 annual report of SpatiaLight, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2001 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert A. Olins, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 Company.

                                                  /s/ Robert A. Olins
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Robert A. Olins
                                                  Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                                  SpatiaLight, Inc.
                                                  September 19, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Under Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 / 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 / SEC Rule 13a-14(b)

Thomas L.
Tullie hereby certifies that:

1. He is the chief executive officer of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.

2. The Form 10-Q report of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

3. The information contained in the Form 10-Q report of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. that this
certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2006                  
|                                     
|/s/ Thomas L. Tullie                 
|Thomas L. Tullie                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Henry Colton, Appellant, v. Charles B. Ransom and another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,732
<INVENTORY>                                      6,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,491
<PP&E>                                          27,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,499
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 374,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,727
<BONDS>                                         95,184
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           359
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   374,799
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,069,548
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               648,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,029
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
October 11, 2023
No. 04

- 23

- 00763

- CR & 04

- 23

- 00764

- CR Jerry L. MASSEY , Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 437th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023CR4026W & 2023CR4027W Honorable Joel Perez , Judge Presiding
ORDER In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appeal nos. 04

- 23

- 00763

- CR & 04

- 23

- 00764

- CR are DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
It is so ORDERED on October 11 2023

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of October, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001059127
<NAME> ALADDIN GAMING HOLDINGS, LLC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,175,116
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,892,542
<PP&E>                                          79,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             400,878,409
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,266,604
<BONDS>                                    383,857,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,248,426)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               400,878,409
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,425,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          21,733,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (32,856,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (32,856,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (32,856,405)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IMAN COKRO YOELIKO; IMAM

TAUFIK YOELIKO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70697

Agency Nos. A095-634-699

A095-629-936

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 11, 2011** 

Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Iman Cokro Yoeliko and Imam Taufik Yoeliko, natives and citizens of

Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

FILED

AUG 16 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70697

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder,

558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we review de novo due process claims,

Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

We reject petitioners’ contention that the agency violated their due process

rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and

prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners experienced

harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See Wakkary, 558

F.3d at 1059-60 (being twice beaten, robbed, and accosted by a threatening mob

did not compel a past persecution finding); Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179,

1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and one beating did not compel finding

of past persecution); Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 965-69 (9th Cir. 1998) (repeated

stoning and vandalism of petitioner’s home did not compel finding of past

persecution). In addition, even as members of a disfavored group, petitions have

not shown sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear probability of

persecution in Indonesia. See Hoxha, 319 F.3d at 1185; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at

1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a
3 09-70697

considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”). Accordingly,

petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not that they would be

tortured in Indonesia by or with the acquiescence of the government. See

Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 1221, Misc.

#### Thompson *v.*Maroney, Warden.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Certiorari denied.