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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1375

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to adjust the labor costs

relating to items and services furnished in a geographically reclassified

hospital for which reimbursement under the Medicare Program is provided on a prospective basis.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. STUPAK (for himself, Mr. WATKINS, Mr. FROST, Mr. PAUL, Mr.

COSTELLO, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. FARR of California, and Mr. OSBORNE)

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 adjust

the labor costs relating to items and services furnished

in a geographically reclassified hospital for which reimbursement under the Medicare Program is provided on

a prospective basis.

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 ‘‘Medicare Geographic

5 Adjustment Fairness Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1375 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOSPITAL GEOGRAPHIC RECLASSIFICATION FOR

2 LABOR COSTS FOR ALL ITEMS AND SERVICES

3 REIMBURSED UNDER PROSPECTIVE PAY4 MENT SYSTEMS.

5 Section 1886(d)(10)(D) of the Social Security Act

6 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(10)(D)), as amended by section

7 304(a) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits

8 Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (as enacted into

9 law by section 1(a)(6) of Public Law 106–554), is amend10 ed by adding at the end the following new clause:

11 ‘‘(vii)(I) Any decision of the Board to reclassify a

12 subsection (d) hospital for purposes of the adjustment fac13 tor described in subparagraph (C)(i)(II) for fiscal year

14 2001 or any fiscal year thereafter shall apply for purposes

15 of adjusting payments for variations in costs that are at16 tributable to wages and wage-related costs for PPS-reim17 bursed items and services.

18 ‘‘(II) For purposes of subclause (I), the term ‘PPS19 reimbursed items and services’ means each item and serv20 ice for which payment is made under this title on a pro21 spective basis and adjusted for variations in costs that are

22 attributable to wages or wage-related costs that is fur23 nished by the hospital to which such decision applies, or

24 by a provider-based entity or department of that hospital

25 (as determined by the Secretary).’’.

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0365. GARY FORD v. THE STATE.

On August 25, 2009, Gary Ford pled guilty to aggravated battery, robbery by

force, and battery. Ford subsequently filed a number of motions to vacate, which the

trial court denied. Most recently, Ford filed a “Petition for Equitable Relief from

Judgment Due to Fraud,” which the trial court construed as a motion to vacate. The

trial court denied the motion on April 5, 2016, and Ford filed this direct appeal. We

lack jurisdiction.

“[A] petition to vacate or modify a judgment of conviction is not an appropriate

remedy in a criminal case.” Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 218 (1) (686 SE2d 786)

(2009). Any appeal from an order denying or dismissing such a motion must be

dismissed. See id. at 218 (2); Roberts v. State, 286 Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150)

(2010). A direct appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to vacate or correct

a void sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence

is, in fact, void. See Harper, supra at 217 n.1; Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119

(676 SE2d 465) (2009). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are limited to

claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for which the

sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most typically

because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable penalstatute

provides.” von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). 

Accordingly, when a sentence is within the statutory range of punishment, it is not

void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483) (2004).

Here, Ford does not argue that his sentence exceeded legal limits; rather, he

claims, among other arguments, that he was fraudulently indicted and received

May 25, 2016
ineffective assistance of counsel. These are challenges to the validity of his

convictions, not his sentence. See Brown v. State, 297 Ga. App. 738 (678 SE2d 172)

(2009) (challenge alleging ineffective assistance of counsel does not assert a ground

upon which a conviction can be declared void); Jones v. State, 290 Ga. App. 490, 493

(1) (659 SE2d 875) (2008) (challenge regarding indictment does notraise a valid void

sentence claim). Because Taylor has not raised a colorable void-sentence claim, this

appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Roberts, supra. Because

Ford has not raised a colorable argument that his sentence is void, this appeal is

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

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.

05/25/2016
#### BLAMAN v. GULF FURNITURE CO., Inc.

No. 17871.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 7, 1944.

*562L. W. Cockfield, of New Orleans, for appellant.

H. L. Hammett, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Mrs. Gladys Blaman Levy brought this suit against the Gulf Furniture Company for $300 as damages for the illegal seizure of her furniture.

The defendant answered admitting the seizure of the furniture, which it claimed had been voluntarily surrendered by the plaintiff.

There was judgment below dismissing plaintiff’s suit and she has appealed.

It appears that sometime in 1939, Mrs. Levy purchased certain household goods from the defendant for the sum of $159.07, which she agreed to pay for in monthly installments. On September 14, 1940, after having paid $59.69, she was $6 in arrears. The defendant, being dissatisfied with her account, sent one of its employees with a moving van to her residence, demanding the $6 or the furniture. Mrs. Levy was unable to pay the $6 and the furniture was placed on the sidewalk. She was requested to sign a form of release, prepared by the defendant, which she refused to do, although the defendant’s agent threatened to send for the sheriff. After several hours delay the furniture was removed to defendant’s place of business.

The defense to the effect that Mrs. Levy had given consent to the removal of her property is not sustained. The evidence relied upon to prove Mrs. Levy’s consent consists in her statement that since she did not have the $6 they would have to take the furniture. As she puts it: “I •owed some money and I figure I have to let them take it, because it didn’t have the money they asked for”. We do not interpret this remark as in any way evidencing her consent, but simply as an indication that she believed that she was obliged to surrender the furniture in default of the payment of the $6 demanded of her.

 We have had occasion a number of times in the past to consider similar ■cases where the vendors of merchandise on the installment plan have, without resorting to legal procedure, repossessed themselves of the merchandise sold because of the failure of the purchasers to meet their installments promptly. Lewis v. Burglass, La.App., 172 So. 807, and numerous authorities cited therein. We have uniformly held such action illegal and have awarded damages to claimants who have been subjected to such treatment. The amount of damages awarded in such cases has varied from $200 to $750. We believe in this case the minimum would be appropriate.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided and reversed and it is now ordered that there be judgment herein in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Gladys Blaman Levy, and against the Gulf Furniture Company, Inc., in the sum of $200 and all costs.

Reversed.

JANVIER, J., absent, takes no part
May 24, 2016



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEIROI MICKELE DANI ELS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00111

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________ _________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no erro r in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-194-01-JD

Lester Caron

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

13) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: June 19, 2007

cc: Michael Iacopino, Esq.

Peter Papps, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00194-JD Document 14 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael D. Rix

v . Civil No. 05-cv-354-JD

Strafford County Department of Corrections ,

Superintendent, et al .

ORDE R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated April 24, 2006 .

SO ORDERED.

May 18, 2006 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Michael D. Rix, pro se

Corey Belobrow, Esq .

Case 1:05-cv-00354-JD Document 32 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Sawtell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-229-SM

NH State Prison, Warden

NOTICE OF RULING

Re: Document No. 20, Motion for Relief from Stay of

Proceedings

Ruling: It is a mystery how counsel could think that

Petitioner’s petition is now ready for preliminary review. In my

July 13, 2006 order, I said: “A petitioner’s remedies in New

Hampshire are exhausted when the State’s highest court has had an

opportunity to rule on the petitioner’s federal constitutional

claims.” The Merrimack Superior Court is not the highest court

in New Hampshire. Secondly, Petitioner was ordered to provide

copies of motions, petitions and briefs to demonstrate that the

New Hampshire Supreme Court has had the opportunity to consider

the federal constitutional nature of each of the four purported

claims. He has not done so. Ordinarily, at this point I would

recommend dismissal for lack of demonstrated exhaustion but that

appears to be unfair since the fault appears to be the

indifference or incompetence of counsel who was provided a

roadmap on what he needed to do in my prior order. Within 30

days Petitioner is to demonstrate exhaustion or ask for a further

stay to permit exhaustion. The Clerk is directed to provide a

copy of this order to Attorney Gleason and to the Petitioner.

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: May 8, 2008

cc: Thomas J. Gleason, Esq.

 Scott F. Gleason, Esq.

 Stephen D. Fuller, Esq.

 Joseph Sawtell, Petitioner 

Case 1:06-cv-00229-SM Document 22 Filed 05/08/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.4







kpmg LLP

Vaughan Metropolitan Centre

100 New Park Place, Suite 1400

Vaughan ON L4K 0J3

Canada

Tel 905-265-5900

Fax 905-265-6390



Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors

Sangoma Technologies Corporation



We consent to the use of:



|· | our report dated September 27, 2023 on the consolidated financial statements of Sangoma Technologies Corporation
(the "Entity") which comprise the consolidated statement of financial position at June 30, 2023, the related consolidated statements
of loss and comprehensive loss, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year ended June 30, 2023, and the related notes
(collectively, the "consolidated financial statements").
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



each of which is included in the Annual Report on Form 40-F/A
of the Entity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023.



We also consent to the incorporation
by reference of such report in the registration statements (No. 333-270918) on Form F-3 and (No. 333-261071) on Form F-10 of the Entity.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Professional Accountants,
Licensed Public Accountants

Vaughan, Canada

September 28, 2023
Exhibit 99.1



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


In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of  AEI  Income  &
Growth Fund XXII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership")  on
Form  10-QSB  for the period ended June 30, 2002,  as  filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission  on  the  date
hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Robert P. Johnson, President  of
AEI  Fund Management XXI, Inc., the Managing General Partner
of  the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

     2.   The  information  contained in the  Report  fairly
          presents,  in all material respects, the financial
          condition  and  results  of  operations   of   the
          Partnership.


                              /s/ Robert P Johnson
                                  Robert P. Johnson
                                  President of
                                  AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.,
                                  the Managing General Partner
                                  August 6, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-70-01-SM

William Prentice

ORDER

Re: Document No. 44, Motion for Additional Funds

Ruling: 

Denied, but without prejudice. Dr. Mart's report ought to

suffice, absent some contest or challenge to his analysis, which

is not suggested by defense counsel. Given that nothing in the

motion suggests a need for live testimony simply to relate what

is presumably already in the report, and apparently not

contested, the requested expenditure seems entirely unnecessary. 

If the facts are different or other circumstances exist that

might militate in favor of authorizing the requested expenditure,

then an appropriate motion may be filed. 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: October 17, 2007

cc: Terry Ollila, Esq.

Jorel Booker, Esq.

Case 1:06-cr-00070-SM Document 46 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22179]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration 11435]

Alabama Disaster AL-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-
1789-DR), dated 09/10/2008.
    Incident: Hurricane Gustav.
    Incident Period: 08/29/2008 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 09/10/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/10/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/10/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 09/10/2008, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Baldwin, Mobile.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Alabama: Clarke, Escambia, Monroe, Washington.
    Florida: Escambia.
    Mississippi: George, Greene, Jackson.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage and for 
economic injury is 11435.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22179 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 5 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 6 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 7 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 8 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 9 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 10 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 11 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 12 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 13 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 14 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 15 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 16 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 17 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 18 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 19 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 20 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 21 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 22 of 23
Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 35-2 Filed 11/06/06 Page 23 of 23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,227,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,086,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,030,169
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,452,466
<PP&E>                                         428,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,309
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,800,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,290,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           310
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,437,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,800,753
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,804,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,046,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,212,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,217,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,217,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of Americ a

V .

Paul McGrail

Case No . 05-cr-281-01-SM

ORDER

Defendant McGrail's motion to continue the final pretrial conference an d

trial is granted (document 8) . Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2006

trial period. Defendant McGrail shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than January 31, 2006 . On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall

be effective .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U .S .C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : April 21, 2006 at 3 :00 p .m.

Jury Selection : May 2, 2006 at 9 :30 a .m.

Case 1:05-cr-00281-SM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED .

January 24, 2006

cc : Jeffrey Levin, Esq.

Arnold Huftalen, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Steven I. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

2

Case 1:05-cr-00281-SM Document 10 Filed 01/24/06 Page 2 of 2