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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2917 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2917

 To expand the program of priority review to encourage treatments for 
                           tropical diseases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 12, 2014

 Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Enzi, Mrs. 
 Murray, Mr. Burr, Mr. Casey, Mr. Isakson, Mrs. Hagan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
Franken, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Scott, 
Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. 
Markey, Mr. Brown, Mr. Coburn, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Durbin) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
               on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the program of priority review to encourage treatments for 
                           tropical diseases.

    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 ``Adding Ebola to the FDA Priority 
Review Voucher Program Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY REVIEW TO ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR TROPICAL DISEASES.

    Section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
360n) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraph (Q) as 
                subparagraph (R);
                    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (P) the 
                following:
                    ``(Q) Filoviruses.''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (R), as so redesignated, by 
                striking ``regulation by'' and inserting ``order of''; 
                and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``There is no limit 
                on the number of times a priority review voucher may be 
                transferred before such voucher is used.'' after the 
                period at the end; and
                    (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``365 days'' and 
                inserting ``90 days''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000773281
<NAME>                                             PS PARTNERS VI, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                       U.S. $
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                        1,899,000
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    74,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              1,973,000
<PP&E>                                                       72,980,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                             (23,960,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               65,616,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           942,000
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   40,262,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 65,616,000
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              6,151,000
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 2,136,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              1,516,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               1,295,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           1,295,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  1,295,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      7.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      7.23
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            CALL A CUT A CUT

  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether to call 
this room the Hall of the House or the Casino of the Capitol because 
right now, the Republicans are playing a billion dollar shell game with 
Medicare.
  The Republicans say they are increasing funding for Medicare over the 
next 7 years. What they really do is cut the amount needed to maintain 
the current level of services by $282 billion. That does not sound like 
much of an increase to me.
  What this really means for the average senior citizen is that they 
will have to pay more out of their own pocket for health care. In fact, 
they will have to pay over $3,500 more out of their own pockets over 
the next 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Republicans to come clean. They have 
prided themselves on opening up government and being honest with the 
American people. If that is true, then they should be honest enough to 
call a cut a cut.
  The American people, especially our senior citizens, will remember 
this act of dishonesty on November 5, 1996--election day.

                          ____________________
```
#### M. R. Stringfellow et al. v. A. S. Thomson.

(No. 1082, Op. Book No. 2, p. 226.)

Appeal from Caldwell County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1008. *Assignment of account; reservation of interest to assignor is not of itself sufficient to establish fraudulent intent of .assignor.*Suit upon an account claimed to be due N. A. Thomson by appellant String-fellow, and assigned by N. A. Thomson to appellee A. S. Thomson, and suit brought in the latter’s name. The assignment of the account, its legality and admissibility in evidence, constituted the real contest in the court below. Upon these questions the appellate court said: “The assignment to appellee by N. A. Thomson of his interest in the estate of his uncle contained the following sentence: ‘ Provided, that should my interest in said estate exceed the amount of above promissory note, then the excess thereof to be paid to me on settlement with said estate by said A. S. Thomson.’ It is insisted by appellants that said clause is a reservation for the benefit of said N. A. Thomson, and, as a matter of law, renders the assignment void. The supreme court, in the case of Bailey v. Mills, 27 Tex. 434, in effect decided that such a stipulation in an assignment did not of itself show a fraudulent intent upon the part of the assignor, and .as to whether the assignment was or was not fraudulent, was a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence. After a careful examination of the assignment, we conclude that it did vest in appellee all the interest of the assignor in and to said estate, and fully authorized him to sue therefor.”

§ 1009. *Notarial seal.*A notarial seal, instead of having the letters TEXAS around the extreme margin of the seal, had them placed between the several points of the star. *Held,*that this seal was a substantial compliance with the statute in that respect.

*566March 30, 1881.

§ 1010. *Evidence; part of letter being read in evidence by one party, the other party might read, another portion of it.*Appellants in thy court below read in evidence a portion of a letter. Appellee offered to read in evidence the whole of the letter, and was permitted to do so, over the objections of appellant! *Held,*no error. That portion of the letter offered by appellee was directly connected with the subject matter of the portion which had been read in evidence by appellant, and tended to explain the same, and was admissible testimony.

§ 1011. *Damages on appeal from justice’s court.*Article 6349, Pas. Pig., giving ten per cent, damages on appeal from justice’s court, was repealed by the justice’s court act of 1876, and since the repeal there is no law allowing such damage. A judgment of the county court awarding ten ¡ier cent, damages against the appellant and his sureties was therefore reversed and reformed, on appeal to the court of appeals, at the cost of appellee.

Reversed and reformed.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: SECAF Outlines Modernization, Future Operating Concept, Recruitment IncentivesPublished March 17, 2023
                        
                        By Senior Airman Saomy Sabournin
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                In this week’s look around the Air Force, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall talks about modernization and the pacing challenge the U.S. faces with China, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr. announces the Future Operating Concept for the service and a recruitment incentive program for enlisted ranks is revived. (Hosted by Staff Sgt. Jazmin Granger)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Kendall outlines clear path for modernizing Air, Space Forces & confronting peer competitors****- Brown says Airmen must be comfortable with ‘discomfort’ to drive change the Air Force needs****- Air Force secures additional funding for recruitment incentive programs**Featured Video 



AF 



Air Force 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



AFTV 



Warfare Symposium 



CSAF 



Air Force Chief of Staff 



Accelerate Change or Lose 



ACOL 



Operational Imperatives 



pacing challenges 



SecAF 



China 



Battle Management 



Initial Enlistment Bonuses 



Enlisted College Loan Repayment 



Student Loan Repayment Program
EXHIBIT 31.1


Certification

I, Harry M. Neer, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Rockport Healthcare, Group, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

c.   Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2004


/s/ Harry M. Neer
----------------------------
Harry M. Neer, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. PRESSLER, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation, without amendment:
       S. 625. A bill to amend the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 
     of 1992 (Rept. No. 104-81).
       By Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on the Budget, without 
     amendment:
       S. Con. Res. 13. An original concurrent resolution setting 
     forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 
     2001, and 2002 (Rept. No. 104-82).
     

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 62 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 62

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2007

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Children and Families 
 Day, in order to encourage adults in the United States to support and 
 listen to children and to help children throughout the Nation achieve 
            their hopes and dreams, and for other purposes.

Whereas research shows that spending time together as a family is critical to 
        raising strong and resilient kids;
Whereas strong healthy families improve the quality of life and the development 
        of children;
Whereas it is essential to celebrate and reflect upon the important role that 
        all families play in the

              

lives of children and their positive effect for the Nation's future;

Whereas the fourth Saturday of June is a day set aside to recognize the 
        importance of children and families; and
Whereas the country's greatest natural resource is its children: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That Congress supports the goals and ideals of a National Children and 
Families Day.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### T. S. Rogers v. Tapp, Leathers *&*Co.

(No. 1156, Op. Book No. 3, p. 227.)

Appeal froih Hopkins County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1308. *Alteration of written obligation; effect of.*Appellant signed a promissory note as surety for one Blythe, writing the word “security” after his signature. After the execution and delivery of the note, and without the knowledge or consent of appellee, the word “security ” was erased from the note. Appellees sued Blythe and appellant as joint principals upon the note. Appellant pleaded the fraudulent alteration of the note in the particular mentioned in a sworn plea, which was supported by evidence on the trial. The court rendered judgment against Blythe as principal and appellant as surety for the amount of the note. *Held,*the erasure of the word “security,” which Rogers had written with his signature to the note, was a material alteration of the instrument, and avoided the note. Adding “security ” to his name limited his liability to that of a surety. He was not primarily liable. He saved to himself all the rights and privileges which, under the law, a surety is. entitled to. “Where one of the makers of anote adds to his signature the word ‘ surety,’ the holder is bound to treat him as such, and cannot vary the terms of the con*760tract by extending the time of payment or otherwise, so as to increase the risk of the surety, without discharging him.” [Reynolds v. Ward, *5*Wend. 501; Edwards on Bills, 573.] The addition of the word here was not 3 mere memorandum; it was indicative of the character Rogers assumed; and the proof shows that it was placed there upon the express understanding that he was bound only as surety. He refused to sign the note otherwise. [1 Parsons on Bills, 233; Crawford v. Jones, 27 Tex. 382; Hunt v. Adams, 5 Mass. 358; Robison v. Lyle, 10 Barb. 512.] Unquestionably, the erasure of the w'ord “security ” in this obligation was a material alteration, which avoided it.

December 7, 1881.

Reversed and rendered for Rogers.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

p0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138321 

ASSUMPTION GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138321 

 COA: 275733 

Macomb CC: 06-002779-CK 

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 25, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Cody Devon McGee

, * From the 3 9 th District Court

of Haskell County

Trial Court No. 6836

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 00 1 2 2

- CR * May 23 , 2019

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, S. C. J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC,

Respondent

v.

RODGER LINDSAY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 383 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED with respect to the issue raised, and as presented, by the Petitioner:

Whether the Superior Court erred in determining that a homeowner was not the prevailing party because a residential mortgage foreclosure action

does not “arise under Act 6” where the homeowner raised defenses to a mortgage foreclosure under Act 6 and the l ender then discontinued the mortgage foreclosure action?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NOVA
INTERNATIONAL FILMS, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
April 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-30-2000
<CASH>                          1,269
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,269
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,424
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                        966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<OTHER-SE>                      8,197,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,269
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (4,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (4,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (4,024)
<EPS-BASIC>                   .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .000



</TABLE>
[No. 43798-4-I.

Division One.

April 3, 2000.]

#### Thomas R. Hazelrigg, IV, *Appellant,*v. Northwest Quality Properties, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-2-02806-8, Jeffrey Michael Ramsdell, J., entered December 11, 1998. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, C.J., concurred in by Becker and Cox, JJ.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY SLOTT.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.