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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1768 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception 

to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between 

two physicians during the period in which one of the physicians is 

ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component of the 

Armed Forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2007 

Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. LOTT, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal 

billing arrangements between two physicians during the 

period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active 

duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 

Forces. 

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


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1768 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RE2 CIPROCAL BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE 

3 OF PHYSICIANS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY 

4 IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the 

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is 

7 amended by inserting after ‘‘of more than 60 days’’ the 

8 following: ‘‘or are provided over a longer continuous period 

9 during all of which the first physician has been called or 

10 ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component 

11 of the Armed Forces’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after 

14 the date of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer of TierOne Corporation (the Company),
hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

| | (1) | The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
               2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or                78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Date:  March 8, 2006 | By:/s/ Gilbert G. Lundstrom                
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                     | Gilbert G. Lundstrom, Chairman of the Board
|                     | and Chief Executive Officer
Opinion issued March 28, 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 00836 - CV

——————————— IN THE MATTER E.L.V. , Appella nt On Appeal from the 313th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2023 - 00735J

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant E.L.V., a juvenile, has filed a n unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1) (voluntary dismissal of civil appeals); see also T EX . F AM . C ODE § 56.01(b) (juvenile appeals are governed by rules “in civil cases generally” ). Appellant ’ s motion , signed by appellant and his attorney, includes a statement that appellant is inf ormed of his right to appeal and2

understands the consequences of dismissing of his appeal. We conclude that appellant ’ s motion is sufficient to show that he has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. See T EX . F AM . C ODE § 51.09

. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(a)(1). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Hightower.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1916 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1916

 To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the program for the 
 sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees by terminating the authority 
 for the removal of chimpanzees from the system for research purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2007

  Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Vitter, and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the program for the 
 sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees by terminating the authority 
 for the removal of chimpanzees from the system for research purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES; TERMINATION OF 
              AUTHORITY FOR REMOVAL FROM SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--The first section 481C of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287a-3a) (added by section 2 of Public Law 106-
551) is amended in subsection (d)--
            (1) in paragraph (2), in subparagraph (J), by striking ``If 
        any chimpanzee is removed'' and all that follows; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) by striking clause (ii); and
                            (ii) by striking ``except as provided'' in 
                        the matter preceding clause (i) and all that 
                        follows through ``behavioral studies'' and 
                        inserting the following: ``except that the 
                        chimpanzee may be used for noninvasive 
                        behavioral studies'';
                    (B) by striking subparagraph (B);
                    (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as 
                subparagraph (B); and
                    (D) in subparagraph (B) (as so redesignated), by 
                striking ``under subparagraphs (A) and (B)'' and 
                inserting ``under subparagraph (A)''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by redesignating the 
second section 481C (added by section 204(a) of Public Law 106-505) as 
section 481D.
                                 <all>
```
#### Elbert HENSLEY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

*889Roy W. House, Manchester, for appellant.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., George F. Rabe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

VANCE, Commissioner.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He presents two questions on this appeal. First, he claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and secondly, that the trial court erred in giving an instruction on wilful murder.

The appellant admitted that he was intoxicated; that he fired several shots from a .38-caliber pistol from a moving vehicle and that he knew there was a group of men in the vicinity of the place where he fired the shots. Although he claimed to have fired his gun away from the men, there was evidence to the effect that deceased fell while appellant was driving by firing his gun and that the death resulted from a bullet from a .38-caliber pistol.

There was some conflict as to whether shots were fired by anyone other than appellant but the jury was authorized to believe from the evidence that the only shots fired on that occasion were fired by appellant.

In addition there was evidence that shortly before the shooting the appellant drew a gun upon another person and threatened to shoot him.

The contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the. verdict is without merit.

The trial court instructed upon both wilful murder and involuntary manslaughter. The appellant contends the instruction upon wilful murder was not authorized by the evidence and should not have been given. The appellant was not convicted of wilful murder and it is difficult to see in what way the instruction prejudiced him. An instruction, even though unauthorized, upon the highest degree of an offense is not a cause for reversal of a judgment where the conviction is for a lesser offense on which the evidence warranted an instruction. Phillips v. Commonwealth, 225 Ky. 160, 7 S.W.2d 1064 (1928).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 10, 2010*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.8 Saving and Investment1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7313

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEON PRATER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00041-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Prater, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Leon Prater appeals the district court’s order denying 

his request for approval to pursue a sentence reduction under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In denying Prater’s request, the 

court concluded that Prater was not eligible for a sentence 

reduction under Amendment 750 because he was sentenced as a 

career offender. Prater’s sentence, however, was not based on 

his status as a career offender but was the sentence agreed to 

by the parties in the binding plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(c)(1)(C). Nevertheless, we conclude that Prater was not 

entitled to a sentence reduction and we therefore affirm the 

court’s judgment.

Prater also appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion for reconsideration. Although we conclude that the 

court was without authority to consider the motion on the 

merits, United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 

2010), we affirm the denial of the motion.

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 decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 33.1**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA**

**PURSUANT TOITEM 1122 OF REGULATION AB**

**FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA**

Date: March 26,2012                             

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of First National Bank of Omaha (the “Servicer”), hereby certifies as follows: 

(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing its compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d)(“Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB”), except for servicing criteria specified in (1)(iii); (2)(iii) and (vi); 3(iii) and (iv); and 4(x) of Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, which the Servicer has determined are inapplicable to theactivities it performs with respect to the credit card asset backed securities transactions issued by First National Master Note Trust (the “Platform”) being serviced (such applicable criteria, after giving effect to the exceptionsidentified above, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 relating to the servicing of the Platform; 

(2) The Servicer used the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria; 

(3) The Servicer is in compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria relating to the Platform as of and for the year endingDecember 31, 2011 in all material respects; and 

(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered publicaccounting firm, has issued an attestation report for the Platform on the Servicer’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2011. 

 

 
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, as ServicerBy /s/ Timothy D. Hart Timothy D. Hart Senior Vice President
[Signature page to Report on Assessment of Compliance 

of First National Bank of Omaha]
**Exhibit 10.1**

July 31, 2009 

Re: Director Compensation - Equity Acceleration upon Change of Control 

Dear                     , 

As you are aware, on April 30, 2009, PMC-Sierra, Inc.’s Board of Directors approved the acceleration of your options and restricted stock unitsunder certain circumstances. In particular, immediately prior to the effective time of a Change of Control each of your then outstanding options and restricted stock units awarded to you for service as a Director (to the extent not fullyvested at such time) will accelerate in full. The shares of common stock issuable upon vesting of the restricted stock units shall be issued as soon as practicable following the Change of Control but in no event later than the close of thecalendar year in which the Change of Control or (if later) the fifteenth (15th) day of the third (3rd) calendar month following such Change of Control. For this purpose, a “Change of Control” means the occurrence of any ofthe following events: 

(A) Any “person” or “group” as such terms are defined under Sections 13 and 14 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (other than PMC-Sierra, Inc. (the “Company”), a subsidiary of the Company, or a Company employee benefit plan) is or becomes the “beneficial owner” (as defined inExchange Act Rule 13d-3), directly or indirectly, of Company securities representing 50% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s then outstanding securities. 

(B) The closing of: (1) the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company if the holders of Company securities representing allvoting power for the election of directors before the transaction hold less than a majority of the total voting power for the election of directors of all entities which acquire such assets, or (2) the merger of the Company with or into anothercorporation if the holders of Company securities representing all voting power for the election of directors before the transaction hold less than a majority of the total voting power for the election of directors of the surviving entity.

(C) The issuance of securities, which would give a person or group beneficial ownership of Company securities representing 50% or more ofall voting power for the election of directors. 

(D) A change in the board of directors such that the incumbent directors and nominees ofthe incumbent directors are no longer a majority of the total number of directors. 

The remaining terms of your stock options andrestricted stock units shall remain unchanged. You should keep a copy of this letter with your option and restricted stock unit grant agreements and provide a copy to your broker.” 

Thank you for your continuing service to PMC-Sierra, Inc. 

Best regards, 

Greg Lang 

Chief Executive Officer

PMC-Sierra, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

AQUIL JOHNSON,

Petitioner

v.

MARK GARMAN, ET AL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 92 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1940 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1940

  To reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2007

 Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Domenici) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Rio Puerco Watershed Management 
Program Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. RIO PUERCO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Rio Puerco Management Committee.--Section 401(b)(2) of the 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
333; 110 Stat. 4147) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (I) through (N) as 
        subparagraphs (J) through (O), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the following:
                    ``(I) the Environmental Protection Agency;''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 401(e) of the Omnibus 
Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 110 
Stat. 4148) is amended by striking ``enactment of this Act'' and 
inserting ``enactment of the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program 
Reauthorization Act''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6139

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SHARON KAY MOORE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-JBF-TEM-1; 2:07-cv-00590-JBF)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharon Kay Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sharon Kay Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                               [GRAPHIC OMITTED]







April 1, 1999

Mathias J. Barton
210 Polecat Road
Glen Mills, Pa. 19342

Dear Matt:

This is to confirm my offer to you to join Central Sprinkler as Senior Vice
President Finance/CFO reporting directly to me. Your starting salary will be
$145,000 per year plus a bonus opportunity of up to 35%. This bonus will be
prorated for the current fiscal year ending October 31, 1999. You will receive
up to $500 per month as a car allowance. Should you lose your job as a result of
a change in ownership of the Company, you will be afforded one year of
severance.

Additionally, you will be issued 15,000 stock options subject to the terms and
conditions of our Equity Compensation Plan. You will be eligible for the regular
benefits package including health insurance, short term and long term
disability, 401k and ESOP in accordance with the plan guidelines. As an
executive, subject to a physical, your life insurance will be three times your
annual salary with the imputed income tax responsibility at year end. As we
discussed, your vacation eligibility will be three weeks in the vacation year
which starts June 1, 1999. This offer is conditional upon your satisfactorily
completing a physical examination including drug screening.

Matt, I look forward to you joining the Central Sprinkler Company team and hope
to hear from you soon. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (215)
393-0223 or Ray Rawlins at (215) 393-0285.


Sincerely,


/s/ E. Talbot Briddell
------------------------
E. Talbot (Tal) Briddell
Chairman & CEO

                                                           Agreed & Accepted by:
                                                               Mathias J. Barton
Cc: R. E. Rawlins

                            Central Sprinkler Company
             451 North Cannon Avenue, Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446

(215) 362-0700          (800) 523-6512      FAX: (215) 362-5385