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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3864 

To improve the pediatric mental health care access grant program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2022 

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. CASSIDY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To improve the pediatric mental health care access grant 

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 ‘‘Supporting Children’s 

5 Mental Health Care Access Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PEDIATRIC MENTAL HEALTH CARE ACCESS 

7 GRANTS. 

8 Section 330M of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 254c–19) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (b)— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3864 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

2 (i) in subparagraph (G)— 

3 (I) by inserting ‘‘developmental4 behavioral pediatricians,’’ after ‘‘ado5 lescent psychiatrists,’’; and 

6 (II) by inserting ‘‘, and which 

7 may include addiction specialists,’’ 

8 after ‘‘mental health counselors’’; 

9 (ii) in subparagraph (H), by striking 

10 ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

11 (iii) in subparagraph (I), by striking 

12 the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

13 (iv) by adding at the end the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(J) maintain an up-to-date list of commu16 nity-based supports for children with mental 

17 health problems.’’; 

18 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, and 

19 which may include a developmental-behavioral 

20 pediatrician and an addiction specialist’’ before 

21 the period at the end of the first sentence; and 

22 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

23 ‘‘(3) SUPPORT TO SCHOOLS AND EMERGENCY

24 DEPARTMENTS.—In addition to the required activi25 ties specified in paragraph (1), a statewide or reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:54 Mar 18, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3864.IS S3864

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3864 IS

1 gional network of pediatric mental health teams re2 ferred to in subsection (a), with respect to which a 

3 grant under such subsection may be used, may pro4 vide support to schools and emergency depart5 ments.’’; 

6 (2) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub7 section (h); 

8 (3) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(g) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may 

11 award a grant to an eligible entity for purposes of pro12 viding technical assistance to recipients of grants under 

13 subsection (a).’’; and 

14 (4) in subsection (h), as so redesignated, by 

15 striking ‘‘$9,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

16 2018 through 2022’’ and inserting ‘‘such sums as 

17 may be necessary for the period of fiscal years 2023 

18 through 2027’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
 
         CONSENT OF COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P., INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of our report,
which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about
the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, dated January 16, 1998,
except for Note 10 for which the date is January 26, 1998 and Note 12 for
which the date is March 2, 1998, on our audits of the financial statements and
financial statement schedule of ChemTrak Incorporated as of December 31, 1997
and for the year then ended.
 
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of ChemTrak Incorporated (Forms S-8, File Numbers 33-55326, 33-
45912, 33-82784, 333-39807 and Form S-3, File Number 333-46745) of our report,
which includes an explanatory paragraph relating to substantial doubt about
the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, dated January 16, 1998,
except for Note 10 for which the date is January 26, 1998 and Note 12 for
which the date is March 2, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of
ChemTrak Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.
                                             
                                          /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.     
 
San Jose, California
   
April 10, 1998
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11492

Wanhua Chemical US Operations, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Presidential Documents

6157 

Federal Register 

Vol. 81, No. 24 

Friday, February 5, 2016 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of February 3, 2016 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Situation in or in Relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire 

On February 7, 2006, by Executive Order 13396, the President declared 

a national emergency, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706), to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire and ordered 

related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to 

the conflict in Coˆte d’Ivoire. The situation in or in relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire, 

which has been addressed by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1572 of November 15, 2004, and subsequent resolutions, has resulted 

in the massacre of large numbers of civilians, widespread human rights 

abuses, significant political violence and unrest, and fatal attacks against 

international peacekeeping forces. 

The Government of Coˆte d’Ivoire and its people continue to make significant 

progress in promotion of democratic, social, and economic development. 

We congratulate Coˆte d’Ivoire on holding a peaceful and credible presidential 

election, which represents an important milestone on the country’s road 

to full recovery. The United States also supports the advancement of national 

reconciliation and impartial justice in Coˆte d’Ivoire. The United States is 

committed to helping Coˆte d’Ivoire strengthen its democracy and stay on 

the path of peaceful democratic transition, and we look forward to working 

with the Government and people of Coˆte d’Ivoire to ensure continued 

progress and lasting peace for all Ivoirians. 

While the Government of Coˆte d’Ivoire and its people continue to make 

progress towards consolidating democratic gains and peace and prosperity, 

the situation in or in relation to Coˆte d’Ivoire continues to pose an unusual 

and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the 

United States. For this reason, the national emergency declared on February 

7, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, 

must continue in effect beyond February 7, 2016. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive 

Order 13396. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCS
6158 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 24 / Friday, February 5, 2016 / Presidential Documents 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 3, 2016. [FR Doc. 2016–02429 

Filed 2–4–16; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F6–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PRESDOCSOB#1.EPS</GPH>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                             4,730,735
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        254,014
<ALLOWANCES>                                          69,897
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   5,142,303
<PP&E>                                             2,361,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                       171,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     8,182,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,448,861
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                1
<COMMON>                                          23,637,633
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       8,182,992
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           0
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   4,096,338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    28,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (3,997,645)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.27)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.27)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0450. NEIL L. WILCOVE v. KELLY C. WILCOVE.

Neil and Kelly Wilcove divorced in 2008. Kelly Wilcove subsequently filed

a motion for contempt against Neil Wilcove, alleging that he had violated several

provisions of the parties’ divorce decree, including his obligation to pay medical

expenses, insurance health premiums, and “special expenses.” The trial court held

Neil Wilcove in contempt, ordering him to pay reimbursementsfor medical expenses

and insurance premiums, as well as arrearages of $700 per month in “special

expenses.” Neil Wilcove filed this application for discretionary appeal from the trial

court’s ruling. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Under the Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6), the

Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony cases.”

“[A]n appeal from the judgment in a contempt action seeking to enforce any portion

of [a] divorce decree other than child custody is ancillary to divorce and alimony and

falls within [the Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction over ‘divorce and alimony cases.’

[Cits.]”Rogers v. McGahee, 278 Ga. 287, 288 (1) (602 SE2d 582) (2004); see also

Morris v. Morris, 284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670 SE2d 84) (2008). Because the Supreme 

Court has jurisdiction over Neil Wilcove’s appeal, we hereby TRANSFER this case

to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 26, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/26/2015
[Cite as State v. Davidson, 2017-Ohio-8038.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2017-04-044 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 10/2/2017 

 : 

MICHAEL L. DAVIDSON, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2016-11-1748 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Government Services Center, 315 

High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Mary K. Martin, 4460 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for appellant, Michael L. Davidson, has filed a brief with this court 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that 

a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the 
Butler CA2017-04-044 

- 2 - 

trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be 

predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders at 

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to 

determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of 

appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant 

on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief 

and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

 HENDRICKSON, P.J., RINGLAND and PIPER, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Allan L. Paglia, for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law.

[773 NYS2d 726]

Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner to the practice of law. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9840]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4219]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Marmara, Inc., c/o Cichanowicz, Callan & Keane, 139 So. Street, Suite 
103, New Providence, NJ 07974, Officers: Cahit Paksoy, President; Frank 
J. Fassbender, Vice President
American President Business Logistics Services, Ltd., 1111 Broadway, 
Oakland, CA 94607, Officers: Joji Hayashi, Director; Rodney W. Miller, 
Vice President
Alfons Frerika U.S.A., Inc., dba Alfons Freriks Freight Forwarding, 
4674 Clark Howell Highway, #4, Atlanta, GA 30349, Officers: Rob Smits, 
President; Victor Boutier, Vice President
World Cargo Corporation, 4408 NW 74th Avenue, Miami, FL 33166, 
Officers: Diana Obregon-Bader, President; Liliana Hayes, Vice 
President.

    Dated: February 15, 1995.

    By the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4219 Filed 2-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### CARL LaNEVE v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, et al.

(Filed 31 October, 1934.)

Appeal and Error J d—

Tlie burden is on appellant to overcome tbe presumption against Mm and show error in the judgment or order appealed from.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McFlroy, J.,*12 June, 1934, at Chambers. From Haywood.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury caused by the bite of a tarantula while plaintiff was a customer in defendant’s store, brought against the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Arizona, and Homer Owen and Sam Owen, citizens and residents of Haywood County, N. C.

Motion by nonresident corporate defendant to remove cause to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina for trial.

Motion allowed, and plaintiff appeals.

*Morgan, Stamey & Ward and J ones & Ward for plaintiff.*

*B. B. Williams for defendant A. & P. Company.*

Stacy, C. J.

The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the grounds of diverse citizenship, and alleges (1) fraudulent joinder of resident defendants, and (2) separable controversy.

The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which *Cox v. Lumber Co.,*193 N. C., 28, 136 S. E., 254, *Johnson v. Lumber Co.,*189 N. C., 81, 126 S. E., 165, and *Rea v. Mirror Co.,*158 N. C., 24, 73 S. E., 116, may be cited as fairly illustrative; while the appellant contends that the principles announced in *Givens v. Mfg. Co.,*196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681, and *Crisp v. Fibre Co.,*193 N. C., 77, 136 S. E., 238, are more nearly applicable.

*282’Without “threshing oyer old straw,” suffice it to say, appellant has not overcome the presumption against error. *Bailey v. McKay,*198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893. To prevail on appeal, he who alleges error must successfully handle the laboring oar. *Poindexter v. R. R.,*201 N. C., 833, 160 S. E., 767; *Jackson v. Bell,*201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2394-2395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-374]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Public Information Collection Approved by Office of Management 
and Budget

December 30, 1994.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office 
[[Page 2395]] of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following 
public information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511. For further information contact Shoko B. Hair, 
Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-1379.

Federal Communications Commission

OMB Control No.: 3060-0508.
    Title: Rewrite and Update of Part 22 of the Public Mobile Service 
Rules (CC Docket No. 92-115).
    Expiration Date: 10/31/97.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 257,616 total annual hours; .25 - 600 
hours per response.
    Description: Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 301 et. seq., governs the licensing of all 
communications services which operate through the use of radio 
frequencies. Part 22 of the FCC Rules contains the technical and legal 
requirements for mobile radio stations which are classified as common 
carriers. The services covered by Part 22 are: Air- Ground 
Radiotelephone Service; Cellular Radiotelephone Service; Offshore 
Radiotelephone Service; Paging and Radiotelephone Service; and Rural 
Radiotelephone Service. In CC Docket No. 92-115, the Commission revised 
in its entirety Part 22 of its rules. The revisions were made to 
improve the organization and clarity of the Commission's rules by 
eliminating outdated provisions and unnecessary information collection 
requirements, streamlining and expediting licensing and processing 
procedures, and affording licensees greater flexibility in providing 
services to the public.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-374 Filed 1-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2145

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn