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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 49

Requiring a study and report on reducing discriminatory pricing of health

services for the uninsured to improve access to needed health care services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself, Mr. FRANK, and Mr. WEXLER) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy

and Commerce

JOINT RESOLUTION

Requiring a study and report on reducing discriminatory

pricing of health services for the uninsured to improve

access to needed health care services.

Whereas there are over 40 million Americans who are uninsured;

Whereas uninsured Americans are hospitalized at least 50

percent more often than the insured for avoidable hospital conditions, such as pneumonia and uncontrolled diabetes;

Whereas the uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed with

later stage cancer than those with insurance;

Whereas newborn infants born to uninsured mothers have a

31 percent greater risk for adverse health outcomes be-
2

•HJ 49 IH

cause uninsured pregnant women often receive prenatal

care later in their pregnancy;

Whereas insured Americans not only obtain direct benefits

through health insurance, but also obtain discounts to

charges otherwise imposed by health care providers;

Whereas Americans who are uninsured and who must pay for

health care directly are denied access to these discounts

and often face bills that are double or even triple the

charges made in the case of the insured; and

Whereas this discriminatory treatment significantly and adversely affects the ability of uninsured Americans to obtain access to needed health services: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT ON IMPROVING ACCESS

4 TO HEALTH SERVICES BY THE UNINSURED

5 BY REDUCING DISCRIMINATORY PRICING.

6 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Health and Human

7 Services shall conduct a study regarding methods to im8 prove access to (including the affordability of) health care

9 services for uninsured individuals. Such study shall exam10 ine differences in rates charged to such individuals com11 pared to individuals who have health insurance and meth12 ods for reducing or eliminating such differentials.

13 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

14 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit

15 to Congress a report on the study conducted under sub-
3

•HJ 49 IH

1 section (a). The report shall include recommendations on

2 steps that may be taken to assure that uninsured individ3 uals are not charged more than a reasonable percentage

4 (such as 10 percent) above the rate charged by health care

5 providers to individuals who are insured.

Æ
[No. 34495.

Department Two.

January 31, 1958.]

#### *In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of*Martin Holohan, *Petitioner,*v. B. J. Rhay, *as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.*
      *2*

*Martin Holohan, pro se.*

*The Attorney General*and *Michael R. Alfieri, Assistant,*for respondent.

Reported in 321 P. (2d) 259.

Per Curiam.

On December 26, 1955, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the crime of taking a motor vehicle without permission of *896the owner in violation of RCW 9.54.020, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2601-1. Judgment and sentence was entered by the superior court January 18, 1956, providing that petitioner be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty years.

*For the*reasons indicated in the *per curiam*opinion in *In re Richey v. Squier, ante*p. 38, 315 P. (2d) 638, filed September 17, 1957, the petitioner is to be returned to the court where his plea was entered, and that court is directed to impose a corrected sentence of not more than ten years, as provided by the properly applicable statute, *i.e.,*RCW 9.92.010, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 2265.

Writ of *habeas corpus*denied; imposition of corrected sentence directed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition for Princeton Mining Company at March 31,
1997 (unaudited) and the Statement of Income for the three months ended March
31, 1997 (unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    58
<PP&E>                                          70,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          306,428
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       300,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (535,370)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               240,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (240,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (240,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (240,780)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)












</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,317]


Union Carbide Corporation, a Subsidiary of the Dow Chemical 
Company, West Virginia Operations, South Carleston Technology Park, 
South Charleston, WV; Notice of Revised Determination on 
Reconsideration of Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    On August 21, 2008, the Department of Labor (Department) received a 
request for administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers 
of the subject firm.
    On July 18, 2008, the Department issued a certification regarding 
the subject workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and a negative determination regarding their 
eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department's Notice of determination 
was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44283). 
The ATAA investigation determined that, although the workers possess 
skills that are not easily transferrable and a significant number of 
workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older, conditions 
within the chemical industry are not adverse.
    A Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration, applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm, was issued on August 26, 2008, and will soon be published 
in the Federal Register.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received 
new information which indicated that employment related to the chemical 
industry in the state of West Virginia and in the county in which the 
subject firm resides has declined in the relevant time period and that 
the employment in the chemical industry is projected to decrease in the 
local (state and county) economies.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject 
firm.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
revised determination:

    All workers of Union Carbide Corporation, a Subsidiary of Dow 
Chemical Company, West Virginia Operations, South Charleston 
Technology Park, South Charleston, West Virginia, who became totally 
or partially separated from employment on or after May 5, 2007 
through July 18, 2010, are eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of September 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21321 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### 75 South Central Avenue Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Rosana Clavin et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Lockman, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Lock-man, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj251

ALEXZANDRA BLANCO, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

☒ B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a

rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the 

defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant 

committed one or more of the following offenses:

☒ (1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the

Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 

U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);

☒ C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above

☒ The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above, and detention is

ordered on that basis. (Part III need not be completed.)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

☒ By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure

the safety of any other person and the community.

☒ By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the 

defendant’s appearance as required.

☒ Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted

☒ History of alcohol or substance abuse

☒ The current offense involves a controlled substance, firearm, explosive or destructive device.

☒ The mental condition of the defendant.

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

8:23-mj-00251-SMB Doc # 21 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 42
Page 2 of 2

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/4/2023 s/ F.A. Gossett

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00251-SMB Doc # 21 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 43
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21715]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court of Maryland, Baltimore Division, dated June 17, 2008, 
the United States Small Business Administration hereby revokes the 
license of Anthem Capital, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 0373-0200 issued to Anthem 
Capital, L.P. on September 26, 1994 and said license is hereby declared 
null and void as of June 31, 2008.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E8-21715 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
Exhibit 31

Exhibit 31:  Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications

Re:   Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-3 (the "Trust")

I, Steven Shapiro, 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 the Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, 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.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this 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 otherwise disclosed 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:  HomEq Servicing
Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, JPMorgan Chase Bank,
National Association, First NLC Financial Services, LLC, and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ Steven Shapiro
By: Steven Shapiro
Title: Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53865-53866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21725]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8717-1]


NPDES Program Management Information Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives 
notice of a meeting to discuss the NPDES Program Management Information 
Rule. This meeting will be a session at which EPA will present possible 
options for the proposed rule. The purpose of this meeting is to give 
interested parties an opportunity to discuss the proposed rule options 
and to provide EPA comments on the presented options.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 from 1 
p.m. to 5 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is EPA East Room 1153, 1201 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Participants may call 
into the meeting at 1-866-212-1875, access code: 835325<greek-i>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Spath at 202-565-0016 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89faf9e8fde1a7e5e8fcfbece7c9ecf9e8a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a595a4b5e4204464b5f584f446a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reply by September 30, 2008 if you plan on 
calling in or attending this meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to all 
stakeholders interested in the rule EPA is developing to gather NPDES 
program management information. After considerable dialogue with NPDES 
authorized states, the Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators, and the Environmental Council of 
States, EPA decided to develop a proposed rulemaking in order to ensure 
that the site specific information essential to manage the national 
NPDES program, thereby ensuring protection of public health and the 
environment, is available on a nationally consistent, timely, accurate, 
and complete basis.


[[Page 53866]]


    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Lisa Lund,
Director, Office of Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-21725 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### HANEY v. DUNN.

No. 3802.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 22, 1954.

Nealon Stracener, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Homer J. Belanger, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a partition suit by Isaac Haney against Gladys Dunn wherein the plaintiff alleges he owns an undivided one-half interest in a certain tract of real estate containing 53.385 acres located about 12 miles north of the City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The defendant denies the plaintiff has any interest in the property whatsoever and claims to own the tract in its entirety.

The record herein is absolutely devoid of any evidence as to the value of the land in controversy. However, together with the brief of the plaintiff-appellee, there is a notarial act passed before the attorney for the plaintiff-appellee wherein Arthur M. Palmer, a real estate broker in East Baton Rouge Parish deposes that the property in question is worth considerably more than the sum of $2,000, and is at least *364worth $6,000. This instrument is not marked filed and consequently cannot be considered as part of the record.

If this document had been properly filed it might be considered under the authority of New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co. v. Redmann, 210 La. 525, 27 So.2d 321, 324, and authorities cited. These cases held that such an affidavit could be considered in the absence of other evidence showing the pecuniary amount involved in a law suit However, we think, as the Supreme Court did in the cited case, that the affidavit referred to is insufficient to allow us of our own motion to transfer this cause to the Supreme Court, since it is “nothing more or less than the opinion of the deponent.”

 We must take notice ex proprio motu of our possible lack of jurisdiction, even though this question has not been raised either by motion to dismiss or transfer. Richland State Bank v. Brock, La.App., 177 So. 454; Herring v. Breedlove, La.App., 29 So.2d 188.

The minutes show that on February 9, 1953, on motion of the defendant, an appeal was granted to the Supreme Court. But on March 6, 1953, on motion of defendant, this order was annulled, and on July 31, 1953 an order of appeal on behalf of defendant was entered, returnable to this Court.

In this type of question the Supreme Court, in New Orleans & Northeastern R. Co. v. Redmann, supra, observed:

> “In determining the question of jurisdiction, the rule is that the burden of proof is not on the appellee to show want of jurisdiction but on the appellant to prove the existence of jurisdiction as defined in the Constitution, article 7, § 10, or that the burden is on the appellant to show affirmatively that this court has jurisdiction, and this fact must affirmatively appear from the record. * * *”

It is ordered that this cause be remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge for the reception of evidence as to the value of the real estate in controversy. It is further ordered that the record herein plus the additional testimony, be returned to this Court within sixty days from the finality of this decree.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1160 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1160

  To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication 
                          System of the Navy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
 Kind, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Luther, Ms. McKinney, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Obey, 
  Mr. Sanders, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Wu) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To terminate operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication 
                          System of the Navy.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OPERATION OF THE EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY 
              COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.

    (a) Termination Required.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
terminate the operation of the Extremely Low Frequency Communication 
System of the Navy.
    (b) Maintenance of Infrastructure.--The Secretary shall maintain 
the infrastructure necessary for resuming operation of the Extremely 
Low Frequency Communication System.
                                 <all>
```