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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1361

To provide for coverage of all medically necessary pancreas transplantation

procedures under the Medicare Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. NETHERCUTT (for himself, Mr. LAFALCE, and Mrs. CAPPS) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and

Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for coverage of all medically necessary pancreas

transplantation procedures under the Medicare Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Insulin-Free World

5 Medicare Pancreas Transplantation Coverage Act of

6 2001’’.
2

•HR 1361 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF MEDICALLY NECESSARY

2 PANCREAS TRANSPLANTS.

3 Effective for procedures performed on or after the

4 date of the enactment of this Act, any medically necessary

5 pancreas transplantation procedure shall be a covered ben6 efit under the medicare program under title XVIII of the

7 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) whether or

8 not such procedure is done in conjunction with another

9 organ transplantation procedure that is a covered benefit

10 under such program.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Civil No. 07-cv-119-SM

Commissioner, NH Department

of Corrections, et al

ORDER

Re: Document No. 71, Motion for Immediate Emergency Hearing

Ruling: The motion, in substance, seeks relief in the form of

an injunction requiring plaintiff’s immediate removal from the

Texas prison system, based upon allegations that the conditions to

which defendant is being exposed are dangerous and threatening. 

The substantive issues in this case relate to plaintiff’s claims of

constitutional deprivations related to actions taken in New

Hampshire related to his alleged serious medical needs. The

conditions of his confinement in Texas is an entirely different

matter, and plaintiff’s "motion for immediate emergency hearing"

does not articulate with any specificity what facts might entitle

him to relief. Moreover, it appears that any effort to obtain

relief from allegedly unlawful conditions of confinement in Texas

would properly lie in Texas and not in this jurisdiction. While

plaintiff is in custody pursuant to a New Hampshire judgment,

Texas officials are responsible for the conditions imposed

(plaintiff is housed in Texas under the terms of an interstate

agreement), and presumably it is Texas officials who allegedly are

violating plaintiff’s asserted rights. The motion is denied, but

without prejudice.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: January 18, 2008

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 72 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 11

                                RDO EQUIPMENT CO.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)                  Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                             October 31,                         October 31,
(Unaudited)                                             1997                 1996             1997              1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                   <C>                  <C>               <C>              <C>      
Net income                                            $   4,397            $   2,041         $ 10,592         $   5,900
                                                     ===========          ===========      ===========       ===========

Weighted average number of shares outstanding            13,181                8,350           13,181             8,355

Dilutive effect of shares for which proceeds were
     necessary to fund $15 million distribution of
     accumulated S corporation earnings                     ---                1,059              ---             1,059

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding                174                  ---              112               ---
                                                     -----------          -----------      -----------       -----------
Weighted average shares outstanding                      13,355                9,409           13,293             9,414
                                                     ===========          ===========      ===========       ===========
Net income per common share                          $     0.33           $     0.22       $     0.80        $     0.63
                                                     ===========          ===========      ===========       ===========


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      15**














TXU
      Corp.


1601
      Bryan Street


Dallas,
      TX 75201







We
      have
      reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
      Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information
      of
      TXU Corp. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2006 and 2005, as
      indicated in our report dated August 2, 2006; because we did not perform an
      audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.




We
      are
      aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, is
      incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-37652, 333-84418,
      333-84418-01, 333-84418-02, 333-110125 and Amendment No. 1 thereto and
      333-115159 on Form S-3; and Registration Statement Nos. 333-32833, 333-32837,
      333-45657, 333-46671, 333-62014, 333-92260, 333-105133, and 333-125169 and
      Post
      Effective Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form S-8 .




We
      also
      are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
      Securities Act of 1933, 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.







/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP





Dallas,
      Texas


August
      2,
      2006
#### LA RUE et al. v. ADAM et al.

No. 19854.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 1, 1952.

Kullman & Lang and Seme S. Klegar, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Rudolph O. Vorbusch, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

JANVIER, Judge.

We granted a rehearing to one of the plaintiffs, George A. LaRue, because he called attention to the fact that we had allowed him for damages sustained by his automobile only $562.39, although he contended that he had shown that it cost $662.-39 to repair the damage sustained by his automobile in the collision.

The record shows that Mr. LaRue alleged that the cost of making the repairs made necessary by the collision was $662.-39. It also shows that Mr. LaRue had secured a policy of collision insurance in which it was stipulated that he himself should pay the first $100 for the repair of damage to his automobile sustained in collision, and that the insurer would pay the balance.

In the transcript there is a stipulation reading as follows:

> “It is stipulated and agreed between counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendants in this matter that the name of the insurance company which carried the automobile collision insurance on Mr. LaRue’s car at the time in question was the Mercury Insurance Company. And it is further stipulated that the Bohn Motor Company people were paid $562.39, as Mr. Bohn testified.”

Counsel for Mr. LaRue now explain that what Mr. Bohn had actually testified to was that his company had received $662.39 for repairing the automobile and that the $562.39 referred to in the stipulation was the amount which the insurance company had paid, in addition to which Mr. LaRue had himself paid $100.

The record shows that Mr. Bohn testified that his company had received $662.39, and since the insurance company paid only $562.39, necessarily the additional $100 was paid by Mr. LaRue.

In any event, we are convinced that the actual amount paid for repairing the automobile was $662.39.

Accordingly, our original decree is amended by the increase of the award to Mr. LaRue to $728.89. With this amendment our original decree is reinstated and made final.

Original decree amended and reinstated.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-195-01-PB

John Trombly

O R D E R

I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this case as Attorney Jonathan Cohen of the

Mark Sisti Law Firm has filed an appearance on behalf of the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

December 11, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cr-00195-SM Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 1
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2004: Q1... 13 56 31 20 71 10 15 73 12 11 71 18 16 50 

 Q2... 17 60 22 26 64 10 18 73 9 12 74 14 15 63  Q3... 13 60 27 27 64 9 15 79 6 12 66 22 11 58  Q4... 9 58 33 14 75 10 12 81 7 10 77 13 10 50 2005: Q1... 9 61 30 16 72 12 11 80 9 12 78 9 9 52  Q2... 14 62 24 21 70 9 12 82 7 18 68 15 9 58  Q3... 10 57 33 16 73 11 7 89 5 14 63 23 9 42  Q4... 10 51 39 17 65 17 12 83 5 17 67 16 7 39 2006: Q1... 8 55 37 21 72 7 12 81 7 17 63 19 7 39 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2004: Q1... 11 70 19 13 75 12 11 83 6 11 86 3 11 72 

 Q2... 16 68 16 27 60 13 15 81 4 11 85 4 15 70  Q3... 16 61 23 23 61 16 11 84 4 7 83 10 9 64  Q4... 12 71 17 13 72 15 11 89 0 9 84 7 7 74 2005: Q1... 12 69 19 19 66 15 16 80 4 11 84 5 11 68  Q2... 15 69 15 15 74 12 13 80 2 8 82 5 10 72  Q3... 12 67 21 17 68 15 12 81 1 7 83 5 8 70  Q4... 12 73 15 17 64 19 12 79 4 13 76 6 12 69 2006: Q1... 23 58 19 25 67 8 12 83 5 14 83 3 21 62 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2004: Q1... 10 81 10 17 61 22 24 71 6 23 68 9 12 76 

 Q2... 4 92 4 0 89 11 0 94 6 9 86 5 8 84  Q3... 30 61 9 22 67 11 32 63 5 39 57 4 23 69  Q4... 22 65 13 18 71 12 17 72 11 13 78 9 20 60 2005: Q1... 18 73 9 19 71 10 14 81 5 4 96 0 16 68  Q2... 11 67 22 7 87 7 27 73 0 19 81 0 11 67  Q3... 24 71 5 6 89 6 13 88 0 11 11 0 5 19  Q4... 28 61 11 14 71 14 20 80 0 13 75 13 26 58 2006: Q1... 21 63 16 19 69 13 19 81 0 22 72 6 23 68  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
Second Amendment to the Sublease Agreement



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO SUBLEASE AGREEMENT 
  
 This Second Amendment to Sublease Agreement (the “Amendment”), which is dated for reference purposes only on
January 17, 2001, is to that certain Sublease Agreement with an Effective Date of December 1, 2000 (the “Sublease”), in effect by and between InsWeb Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Sublessor”) and Leap Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (“Sublessee”), concerning that certain real property situated in the City of Redwood City, County of San Mateo, State of California, consisting of approximately thirty-two thousand four hundred fifty (32,450) square
feet of space (the “Sublet Space”) on the first and fourth floors in that building known as 901 Marshall Street, Redwood City California (the “Building”), as more particularly described in the Sublease. All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to them in the Sublease. This Amendment shall amend and modify the terms and conditions of the Sublease, and, to the extent that any of the terms and conditions of this Amendment
conflict with the terms and conditions set forth in the Sublease, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control. Except as amended herein, the Sublease shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties amend the Sublease as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Floor 1 shall be delivered March 15, 2001. 

  

	 	2.	Rent Commencement Date for Floor 1 shall be March 15, 2001. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day and year first written above. 
  

									
	 SUBLESSOR
  
 INSWEB CORPORATION
 a Delaware corporation
	 	 	 	 SUBLESSEE
  
 LEAP CORPORATION
 a Delaware corporation

					
	By:	 	/s/    [illegible]	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/    [illegible]
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

					
	Its:	 	CTO	 	 	 	Its:	 	General Counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Frank E. Dow

v. Civil No. 07-cv-355-JL

NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner

O R D E R

After due consideration, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated 2/12/08.

SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2008 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Frank E. Dow, Pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00355-JL Document 13 Filed 08/14/08 Page 1 of 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 26, 2010

d0222 

# Order

February 26, 2010

139311

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139311 COA: 290416 Lenawee CC: 03-010213-FC; GREGORY SHANNON FOX, 03-010214-FC; 03-010215-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 26, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 03-cr-100-01-PB

Russell Seace

O R D E R

On August 17, 2011, defendant appeared for a bail hearing

under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on alleged violations of conditions

of supervision. Defendant did not contest probable cause on the

violations. I therefore find probable cause to hold him for a

revocation hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing

by clear and convincing evidence that he will not flee and that

he poses no danger to any other person or to the community. 

Defendant is facing his third instance of violation of supervised

release for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. He almost hit

a building and a sign. He is a major danger to the community. 

There are no conditions which are likely to assure the safety of

the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

Case 1:03-cr-00100-PB Document 69 Filed 08/17/11 Page 1 of 2
pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his 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 shall 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 shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ James R. Muirhead 

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: 8/17/2011

cc: (US Atty)

 (Defense counsel)

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

2

Case 1:03-cr-00100-PB Document 69 Filed 08/17/11 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

ISONICS CORPORATION

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Principal Executive Officer

To my knowledge: the quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2007, containing financialstatements for the period then ended, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and the information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Isonics Corporation for the periodspresented.

March 19,2007
| /s/ John Sakys                          |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| John Sakys, interim Chief Executive     |
| Officer and Principal Executive Officer |

 

----
Material Contracts



 Exhibit 10(i) 
  
 Exhibit 10(i) – Amendment to Agreement Regarding Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants between MAF Bancorp, Inc., Mid America Bank,
fsb and David C. Burba 
  
 Section 7 shall be revised to read as follows:

  
 7. Payments to Executive. In
consideration of Executive’s agreements hereunder, MAF shall pay, or shall cause the Bank or one of its affiliates to pay to Executive, a lump sum payment of $360,000. The payment will be made on or prior to April 15, 2004 and will be subject
to applicable withholding requirements. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have
executed this Amendment effective this 23rd day of March 2004. 
  

			
	MAF BANCORP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    Allen Koranda        
	 	 	

		
	Its:	 	 Chairman of the Board and

	 	 	

		
	 	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	 	 	



  

			
	MID AMERICA BANK, fsb
		
	By:	 	/s/    Michael J. Janssen        
	 	 	

		
	Its:	 	 Senior Vice President

	 	 	



  

	
	 EXECUTIVE

	
	 /s/    David C. Burba        

	

	David C. Burba
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Carlos A. Morales, et al.

v. NH Civil No. 05-ds-114-JD

PR Civil No. 04-1760

Puerto Rico Department

of Education, et al.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision in

a case that is remarkably similar to this case. See Diaz-Fonseca

v. Commonwealth of P.R., --- F.3d ---, 2006 WL 1652490 (1st Cir.

June 16, 2006). Diaz-Fonseca provides the governing law as to

the limited remedies available in this case. Counsel shall

carefully review Diaz-Fonseca and use their best efforts to reach

a settlement of this case before August 1, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

 (Sitting by designation.)

June 19, 2006

cc: Jose E. Cespedes-Sabater, Esquire

Alfredo Fernandez-Martinez, Esquire

Kristine Burgos Santiago, Esquire

USDC-PR, Clerk

Case 1:05-ds-00114-JD Document 32 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1763 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1763

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the personal 
  needs allowance applied to institutionalized individuals under the 
                           medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

Ms. Schakowsky introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase the personal 
  needs allowance applied to institutionalized individuals under the 
                           medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MEDICAID PERSONAL NEEDS ALLOWANCE FOR 
              INSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1902(q)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1396a(q)(2)) is amended by striking ``$30'' and ``$60'' and 
inserting ``$50'' and ``$100'', respectively.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to months beginning with January 2002.
                                 <all>
```
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
                                Estimated volume               Share of outstanding real estate farm loans
                             (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      ____________________________________     ___________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2     Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                          
1995......    |          12       0      3      6        4      .055     -.001      .011     .027     .016
1996......    |           7       0      1      2        4      .031      .000      .003     .009     .017
1997......    |          16      -1      0      3       14      .064     -.003     -.001     .010     .054
1998......    |           6      -1      3      0        5      .022     -.004      .009     .000     .016
1999......    |          15       0      3      5        7      .051     -.001      .011     .015     .022
2000......    |          12     -12      3      8       14      .037     -.037      .009     .022     .040
2001......    |          42      10      9      5       17      .123      .030      .027     .014     .049
2002......    |          35       8      6      5       16      .097      .022      .017     .014     .041
2003......    |          32       4      6      8       14      .082      .010      .015     .021     .034
2004......    |          18       1      5      2       10      .044      .003      .012     .005     .021
2005......    |          17       2     11      4        0      .039      .005      .024     .009     .000
2006......    |        n.a.       2      6      1     n.a.      n.a.      .003      .012     .002     n.a.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

25