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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 52 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 52

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2001

    Mr. Murtha introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                       relating to school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual prayer in public schools or to prohibit public school 
officials from including voluntary prayer in official school ceremonies 
and meetings. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe 
the content of any such prayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The State, ex rel. Bernhardt, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.*

(No. 24391

Decided February 14, 1934.)

*Mr. J. Edward Schenz*and *Messrs. Frank & Beam,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. B. Zurmehly,*for respondent.

*

 Reporter’s note: For final decision in this case see 128 Ohio State Reports.

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the relator for a writ of mandamus, and the demurrer of the respondent thereto, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be, and the same hereby is, sustained for the reason that the petition alleges the relator was injured on March 13, 1928, as the result of a fall from a ladder; pleads that on July 23, 1930, the respondent found that the relator had been disabled for the period for which compensation had been paid, and refused to grant any further compensation; and avers that on May 16, 1932, the relator filed an application for modification of award, claiming that at the time he received the injury for which compensation had been allowed, he also received a brain injury which had not theretofore been brought to the attention of the respondent; and, therefore, this court finds that the claim for injury set forth in the application of May 16, 1932, was not filed within two years after the injury, and that such claim is barred by Section 1465-72(3, General Code.

Leave is hereby given to the relator to plead fur*583ther within thirty days, and if not filed within that time it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of mandamus prayed for be, and the same hereby is, denied.

*Decree accordingly.*

Weygandt, C. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.16



 




Exhibit 10.16




Form of Stock Option Agreement




SHARE OPTION AGREEMENT




To:



     
On                      you
were granted this option (the “Option”) pursuant to
the IPC Holdings, Ltd. (the “Company”) Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”) to
purchase                       shares
of Voting Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of the
Company at an exercise price
of                        per
share, subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan as
supplemented by this Option. A copy of the Plan is available at
the Company’s principal executive offices which at the date
hereof are located at American International Building, 29
Richmond Road, Pembroke HM08, Bermuda (“Principal Executive
Offices”).



     
1. Vesting; Term. For purposes of Section 6.3
of the Plan, this Option shall vest and become exercisable in
four equal annual installments on each of the next four
anniversaries of the date of this grant. For purposes of
Section 6.5 of the Plan, this Option shall expire at the
close of business on .



     
2. Non-Transferability of Option. This Option is
non-transferable as provided in Section 6.6 of the Plan.



     
3. Mechanics of Exercise. This Option may be
exercised only by written notice to the Secretary of the Company
at its Principal Executive Offices, or to such other person or
at such other address as the Company may provide to you for this
purpose. The notice shall state the election to exercise this
Option and the number of shares in respect of which it is being
exercised at such time and shall be signed by you. In the event
this Option becomes exercisable by another person or persons
upon your death pursuant to the Plan, the notice of exercise
shall be accompanied by appropriate proof of the right to
exercise this Option.



     
4. Agreement to Furnish Information. At or prior to
the time of exercise of all or a portion of this Option, you
agree to furnish such information as the Committee (as defined
in the Plan) may in its discretion deem necessary or advisable
to assure compliance by the Company with the provisions of any
applicable legal requirements.



     
5. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed
and its provisions enforced and administered in accordance with
laws of Bermuda.




	 	 	 
	
    
    IPC Holdings, Ltd.

    	 	
    Accepted and agreed:
	 
	
    
    By:  


    	 	
     

	
    
    Name:

    	 	 
	
    
    Title:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene Rodriguez, Appellant, v Warden et al., Respondents.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hecht, J.), entered November 30, 1989, which dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that the petitioner herein knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present at a final parole revocation hearing, conducted in absentia on March 31, 1989, by persistently refusing to appear despite repeated efforts by the Division of Parole to produce him *(People ex rel. McFadden v New York State Div. of Parole,*79 AD2d 952, 953).

Petitioner’s contention he was too ill to attend the hearing is not supported by the record. There was no evidence, as the hearing court noted, that petitioner was not ambulatory or *207physically unable to be transported to the courthouse. Neither petitioner nor his attorney, who was aware of his continued refusal to attend, made any request for a hearing at Rikers Island. Finally, petitioner’s counsel waived petitioner’s purported right to a new final revocation hearing and, thus, also waived any right to a fact-finding hearing on the issue of whether the petitioner’s allegedly deteriorating medical condition made it impossible for him to attend the final hearing *(People ex rel. Martinez v New York State Bd. of Parole,*56 NY2d 588; *People ex rel. Gonzalez v Warden,*160 AD2d 545). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6700 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6700

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 96-hour 
   physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access 
                           hospital services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2022

   Mr. Smith of Nebraska (for himself and Ms. Sewell) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove the 96-hour 
   physician certification requirement for inpatient critical access 
                           hospital services.

    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 ``Critical Access Hospital Relief Act 
of 2022''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING MEDICARE 96-HOUR PHYSICIAN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 
              FOR INPATIENT CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1814(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395f(a)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by adding ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (7), at the end of subparagraph (E), by 
        striking ``and'' and inserting a period; and
            (3) by striking paragraph (8).
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
with respect to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 
2023.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code


     I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated.


                                    /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                    Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    May 1, 2006
EXBIBIT 23.1



        CONSENT OF KPMG DEUTSCHE TREUHAND-GESELLSCHAFT AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
                        WIRTSCHAFTSPRUFUNGSGESELLSCHAFT



Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft

Frankfurt am Main (Germany)


Re: Registration Statement of Nelnet Student Loan Funding, LLC (Issue of Nelnet
Student Loan Trust 2006-2)

With respect to the subject Registration Statement, we acknowledge our awareness
of the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated October 31, 2006
related to our review of the interim consolidated financial information of
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft and subsidiaries for the three month and nine
month periods ended September 30, 2006.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Act"), such reports
are not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
independent registered public accounting firm, or reports prepared or certified
by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG  DEUTSCHE  TREUHAND-GESELLSCHAFT

        AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT   WIRTSCHAFTSPRUFUNGSGESELLSCHAFT

Frankfurt am Main (Germany)
November 1, 2006
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7295

SUNDARI K. PRASAD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JUDGE M. HANNAH LAUCK; MAGISTRATE RODERICK YOUNG; PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cv - 00042

- JAG )

Submitted : January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district cou rt’s order dismissing without prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order to particularize her complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by particularizing the comp laint as directed, we conclude that the order Prasad seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We deny as moot Prasad’s motion to consolidate this appeal with the mandamus petition we previously denied in
No. 17

- 1910 , and d eny as unnecessary Prasad’s motion to amend to add President Trump

as a party on appeal . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the deci sional process.
DISMISSED

* We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court previously afforded Prasad the chance to particularize her complaint, and she failed to do so. Cf. Goode , 807 F.3d at 629

- 30.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
  Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Marc J. EisenbergMarc J. Eisenberg
    
    Chief Executive Officer and President
(principal executive officer)
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Jerome B. EisenbergJerome B. Eisenberg
    
    Chairman of the Board
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Didier DelepineDidier Delepine
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Marco FuchsMarco Fuchs
    
    Director
    
    March 11, 2010/s/ Hans E. W. HoffmannHans E.W. Hoffmann
    
    Director
    
    March 10, 2010/s/ John MajorJohn Major
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Gary H. RitondaroGary H. Ritondaro
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Timothy KelleherTimothy Kelleher
    
    Director
    
    March 11, 2010/s/ John R. WoodJohn R. Wood
    
    Director
    
    March 9, 2010/s/ Robert G. CostantiniRobert G. Costantini
    
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer (principal
financial and accounting officer)
    
    March 9, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 92 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 92

  Disapproving the rule issued by the Department of Health and Human 
 Services relating to modification of the Medicaid upper payment limit 
   for non-State government-owned or operated hospitals published on 
                           January 18, 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2002

  Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Towns, Mr. Houghton, Mrs. Thurman, Mrs. 
    McCarthy of New York, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Hinchey, Mrs. Capps, Mr. 
  Deutsch, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. 
  Brown of Florida, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Waxman, 
 Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Snyder) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Disapproving the rule issued by the Department of Health and Human 
 Services relating to modification of the Medicaid upper payment limit 
   for non-State government-owned or operated hospitals published on 
                           January 18, 2002.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on March 
15, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 2602, published on January 18, 2002) relating to 
modification of the Medicaid upper payment limit for non-State 
government-owned or operated hospitals, and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SUSAN M. PRECIOSE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D17-2807

RICHARD V. PRECIOSE, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed June 6, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Thomas Minkoff, Judge.

Susan M. Preciose, pro se.

No appearance for Richard V. Preciose.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT and LUCAS, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, 

Concur.
<PAGE>








                                                                  EXHIBIT 32.2


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

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vincent Shunsky,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

Date:  February 17, 2004

                                               /s/ Vincent Shunsky
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Vincent Shunsky
                                               Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       26
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcellus Morris, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered February 28, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, dated September 7, 1988, which denied, without a hearing, his motion, pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20, to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence. The appeal from the judgment brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his statements to the police should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal arrest is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011, 1012-1013; *People v Murriel,*134 AD2d 623, 624). In any event, the People did present evidence establishing that the information known to the police was sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest the defendant *(see, People v Johnson,*66 NY2d 398, 404; *People v Comforto,*62 NY2d 725; *People v Greene,*153 AD2d 439).

We find no merit to the defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. Moreover, a hearing was not warranted with respect to the defendant’s alleged claims regarding trial counsel’s representation which were raised in his postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 *(see also,*CPL 440.30 [4] [c], [d]).

We find the defendant’s remaining contention to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. Bertha SMITH, Widow of Felix Jourdon, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Peter ROUECHE, Defendant and Appellee.*

No. 14608.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

March 26, 1934.

Iíabans & Coleman and A. I. Kleinfeldt, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Wm. H. Talbot, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing denied April 23, 1934.

JANVIER, Judge.

Plaintiff was a guest passenger in the automobile of Peter Roueche at the time of the occurrence of the accident which we have discussed in the matter of Mrs. Camille Smith v. Peter Roueche (La. App.) 153 So. 487, decided by us to-day.

In the Smith Case we reached the cohelusion that defendant was in no way at fault and that the accident resulted from the condition of the roadway, and that defendant could not have anticipated such a condition.

In the lower court judgment was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

For the reasons given in Smith v. Roueche the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, CoreyHenry, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-3 (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement inall material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included inthis report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: WilmingtonTrust, National Association. 

 
By: /s/ Corey HenryName: Corey HenryTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date: March 31, 2022**