alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6087 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 

cover, for purposes of workers’ compensation under such 

chapter, services by physician assistants and nurse practitioners provided to injured Federal workers, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 6087 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Access to 

3 Workers’ Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act 

4 of 2022’’. 

5 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND NURSE 

6 PRACTITIONERS IN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 (a) INCLUSION.—Section 8101 of title 5, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, other eligi11 ble providers,’’ after ‘‘osteopathic practitioners’’; 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraphs 

13 (18) and (19); 

14 (3) by striking the period at the end of para15 graph (20) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

16 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(21) ‘other eligible provider’ means a nurse 

18 practitioner or physician assistant within the scope 

19 of their practice as defined by State law.’’. 

20 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Chapter 81 of 

21 title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

22 (1) in section 8103(a)— 

23 (A) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro24 vider’’ after ‘‘physician’’ in each instance; and 

25 (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘or 

26 other eligible providers’’ after ‘‘physicians’’; 
3 

•HR 6087 EH

1 (2) in section 8121(6), by inserting ‘‘or other 

2 eligible provider’’ after ‘‘physician’’; and 

3 (3) in section 8123(a)— 

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro5 vider’’ after ‘‘The employee may have a physi6 cian’’; and 

7 (B) by inserting ‘‘or other eligible pro8 vider’’ after ‘‘United States and the physician’’. 

9 (c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 6 months after 

10 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall final11 ize rules to carry out the amendments made by this Act. 

12 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6087 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States 

poses. to injured Federal workers, and for other purcian assistants and nurse practitioners provided pensation under such chapter, services by physiCode, to cover, for purposes of workers’ com-
191 La. 558

#### Adam TATE v. Emile LUDEAU et al.

No. 34877.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1939.

Philo Coco, of Marksville, and Chester ■Coco, of Ville Platte, for appellant.

McCoy, King & Jones, of Lake Charles, and Atlee P. Steckler and Roland B. Reed, ■both of Ville Platte, for appellees.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

• The issue in this case is the same as in the case of Mrs. Emma Rosa Tate Fontenot v. Emile Ludeau et al., La.Sup., 186 So. 21. For the reasons given in the opinion rendered in that case, the judgment appealed from in this case is annulled, and the case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion referred to. The defendants are to pay the costs of this appeal. The liability for all other court costs is to abide the final disposition of the case.
**Exhibit 10.7**

**PROMISSORY NOTE**
|                        | **April 20, 2004**       |
|------------------------|--------------------------|
| **U.S. $1,500,000.00** | **Carlsbad, California** |

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned nSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 6190 Corte Del Cedro Road; Carlsbad, California, 92009 (hereinafter called “Maker”), hereby promises to pay to the order ofCenvill Recreation, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 100 Century Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33417 (hereinafter called “Payee”), at the address of Payee’s principal place of business stated above, or atsuch other place as the Payee may designate in writing, the sum of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND Dollars ($1,500,000.00) (the “Principal Amount”), plus interest on the outstanding balance of the Principal Amount at the rate of eight percent (8%) perannum, from the date hereof until the date when said sum is paid in full in accordance with the terms hereof.  The entire Principal Amount plus all accrued interest thereon shall be due and payable in full on July 31, 2004.

It is expressly agreed that this Promissory Note evidences a ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND Dollars ($1,500,000.00) revolving line of credit.  The Principal Amount which may be outstanding at any time under such line of credit shall not exceed ONE MILLIONFIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND Dollars ($1,500,000.00).  However, this limitation shall not be deemed to prohibit Payee from advancing any sum, which may, in Payee’s sole and exclusive discretion, be necessary or desirable in order to protect and preserve theeffect and enforceability of this Promissory Note.  Within the limits and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, the Maker may borrow, repay and re-borrow under the revolving line of credit evidenced by this Promissory Note and all shall be subject to theterms and conditions of this Promissory Note.

Upon the failure by Maker to pay interest in full on or before the date when due hereunder, the entire unpaid amount of this Note shall thereupon be immediately due and payable, and the Payee shall have all rights and remedies provided under this Note.

Maker shall have the right, in Maker’s discretion at any time, without payment of premium or penalty, to repay in whole or in part the unpaid balance of this Note.

This Note shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Florida.  The exclusive venue for any litigation in connection with or arising out of this Note shall be Palm Beach County, Florida, and the Maker hereby consents and submits to thejurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in Palm Beach County, Florida.

MAKER HEREBY KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION BASED HEREON, OR ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS NOTE.

nSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By: /s/ Todd GreshamName: Todd GreshamTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Jack AUTHEMENT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC PARISH COMMITTEE OF ST. BERNARD PARISH et al., Defendants and Appellees.

No. 16302.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 5, 1935.

J. Bernard Cocke and Bertrand I. Cahn, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

Lawrence W. Bergeron and John R. Perez, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by counsel that the issues presented here cannot be distinguished from those which confronted the Supreme Court in the matter entitled Paul Adolph Brown v. Democratic Parish Committee of St. Bernard Parish et al., 165 So. 167, and in various other cases decided by the Supreme Court in the same opinion and decree rendered in the Brown Case *on*December 3, 1935.

For the reasons assigned by the Supreme Court in that case, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Frasso *v.*City of Reading, Appellant.

*Practice, C. P.*— Appeal *from award of vieiuers*— Application *for inspection of premises*— Discretion *of court.*

On the trial of an appeal from an award of viewers, the action of the trial judge in refusing an application by the plaintiff for an inspection of the premises by the jury, made while the trial was in progress and after it had been shown that the building on the lot had been torn down, is not ground for reversal where there is nothing on the record to indicate that the discretion of the court was not wisely exercised.

Argued March 2, 1914.

Appeal, No. 243, Jan. Ter.m, 1913, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., August Term, 1912, No. 8, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Boceo A. Frasso v. City of Beading.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from award of viewers. Before Endlich, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,254. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing defendant’s request to have the jury view the premises in question.

*Samuel E. Bertolet,*with him *Joseph Hill Brinton,*for appellant.

*Joseph R. Dickinson,*and *Henry P. Keiser,*for appellee, were not heard.

March 23,1914:

Per Curiam,

The issue in the Common Pleas was on an appeal from the award of viewers to determine the damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the appropriation of a part of a city lot and of injury to the remainder. The *526only assignment of error that is based on an exception taken at the trial is to the refusal by the court of an application by the plaintiff for an inspection of the premises by the jury made while the trial was in progress and after it had been shown that the building on the lot had been torn down. This application was an appeal to the sound discretion of the court. Mintzer v. Greenough, 192 Pa. 137. There is nothing in the record that indicates that its discretion was not wisely exercised.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-24669,  33-93540, 333-51623,  333-93923,  333-83781 and 333-83781-01 on Form
S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 33-88202,  333-78 and 333-79897 on Form S-8
of Summit  Properties  Inc., of our report dated January 22, 2001,  appearing in
this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Summit  Properties  Inc.  for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 9, 2001
Exhibit 15




August 9, 1999



Orion Capital Corporation
Farmington, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public  Accountants,  of the unaudited  interim financial
information of Orion Capital  Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended
June 30, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in our report dated August 3, 1999; because
we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements  No.
2-80636 and No. 333-58941 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  Corporation
1982 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan, No. 333-58905 on Form S-8 relating to
Orion Capital  Corporation  Equity Incentive Plan, No. 2-63344 and No. 333-58889
on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital  401(K) and Profit  Sharing Plan,  No.
33-59847 and No. 333-58939 on Form S-8 relating to the Orion Capital Corporation
1994 Stock Option Plan for Non- Employee  Directors,  No.  333-55671 on Form S-8
relating to Orion  Capital  Corporation  Employees'  Stock  Purchase  Plan,  and
No.333-62951  on Form S-8 relating to  Retirement  Savings Plan for Employees of
Guaranty  National  Insurance  Company,  of our  report  dated  August 3,  1999,
appearing in this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Orion Capital  Corporation for
the quarter ended June 30, 1999.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act, is not  considered  a part of the  Registration  Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant  or a report  prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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





|Date:  November 18, 2008 |  | By   /s/ Gene Sokolov  
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                         |  |                        
|                         |  | Gene Sokolov           
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Lulu A. Carter, Appellant, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. No opinion. (Patterson, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.)
----

----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  November      14, 2008 |   | /s/      Robert W. Dunlap                                |
|------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | Robert      W. Dunlap                                    |
|                                     |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                     |   | (principal      executive and financial officer)         |

----

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

TAMMI FITZGERALD , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3413

[ January 24, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- MM

005813

- BXXX

- MB

.
Michael Salnick of Law Offices of Salnick & Fuchs, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, Assistant Attorney General, West P alm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., and R OBY , W ILLIAM , L., Associate Judge,

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Stephen Abrams, Appellant, *v.*John Lee, Appellee.

APPEAL PROM SCOTT.

Where a final judgment has been rendered in this court, it is not open to any further proceeding in the circuit court.

This was an action of account, under the statute, between copartners. The cause was heard in this court, upon errors assigned by both parties, as will be seen by reference to twelfth Illinois Reports, p. 111. After hearing and decision in this court, Abrams took a certified copy of the judgment and opinion of this court, to the circuit court of Scott county, and upon filing the same in-that county, entered his motion to recommit the cause to auditors, to have an account stated between the partners, parties to the suit.

This motion was overruled by Woodson, Judge, and thereupon the cause was brought to this court by appeal.

The motion was heard at June term, 1852, of the Scott Circuit Court.

*168M. MoConnel, for appellants.

D. A. Smith, for appellee.

Treat, C. J.

The decision of the circuit court was clearly right. The case was already *res adjudicóla.*It was submitted to this court at a former term, in pursuance of a stipulation of the parties, that cross errors might be assigned on the record, and that such judgment might be entered here as the circuit court should have rendered. This court then came to the conclusion, on a thorough review of the whole case, that the circuit court erred in not rendering judgment for the defendant in bar of the action, and final judgment was thereupon entered here in his favor. Lee *v.*Abrams, 12 Illinois, 111. That was a full and final determination of the case. It was not open to any. further proceeding in the circuit court.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF KPMG LLP





The Board of Directors


Sonic Solutions





We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-73412 and 333-66187) on Form S-8 of Sonic Solutions of our report dated May 1, 2002, relating to the balance sheets of Sonic Solutions as of March 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
statements of operations, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule included herein, and to the references to our firm under the heading
Selected Financial Data in the annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions.





KPMG LLP





San Francisco, California


June 27, 2002
#### Celedonia PARRENAS, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70074. INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI, GRABER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Parrenas has not stated a well-founded fear of persecution. Persecution is an “extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” *Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Philippine government’s failure to provide employment or benefits to its elderly population does not rise to the level of persecution.

The Philippine government’s failure to evacuate Parrenas from Nigeria is not germane because the INS seeks to return her to the Philippines, not to Nigeria, and the incident has no significant bearing on current conditions in the Philippines. Moreover, Parrenas does not allege that the government will mistreat her in any manner other than by failing to provide her with employment or benefits.

We do not reach Parrenas’s claim to humanitarian asylum under *Matter of Chen,*20 I. *&*N. Dec. 16 (1989), because she did not exhaust it. *See Cortez-Acosta v. INS,*234 F.3d 476, 480 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10103 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
PEDRO OROZCO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 346

- 1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Orozco has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Orozco h a s not filed a response. We ha ve reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 11, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10103 Document: 00514677565 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2018No. 18

- 10103

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-10103 Document: 00514677565 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2018
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Paradise, Inc. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz                 |   |   | Date: May 16, 2011 |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------|--------|
| Jack M. Laskowitz                     |   |   |               |   |
| Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |   |               |   |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID C. PATKINS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

K. HOLLAND,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 14

- 15818

D.C. No. 1:13

- cv

- 01591

- LJO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,

Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David C. Patkins appeals from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas pet ition for lack of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Bailey v.

Hill , 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), and we af firm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 15818

In his petition, Patkins chall enges the outcome of a 2012 disciplinary

hearing that resulted in a 30

- day credit forfeiture, arguing that the hearing officer’s

finding that Patkins committed a violation was not supported by “some evidence.”

Because Patkins is serving an indeterminate sentence of 59 years to life , he will not

be released until the Board of Parole Hearings determines that he is suitable for

parole. See Cal. Penal Code § 3041. Moreover, because he was convicted of

second

- degree murder , he is not entitled to accrue credits against his sentence. See

Cal. Penal Code § 2933.2. Therefore, s uccess on his habeas claim would not

necessarily lead to Patkins’s immediate or earlier release from confinement and the

district court correctly concl uded that it lacked habeas jurisdiction. See Nettles v.

Grounds , 830 F.3d 922, 934

- 35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall

outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to

immediate or earlier release from confine ment), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 645

(2017)

.

AFFIRMED.