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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1503 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. GRIJALVA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project. 

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 ‘‘Avra/Black Wash Rec5 lamation and Riparian Restoration Project’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

8 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1503 IH

1 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

2 adding after section 16ll the following: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. AVRA/BLACK WASH RECLAMATION AND RI4 PARIAN RESTORATION PROJECT, PIMA 

5 COUNTY, ARIZONA. 

6 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera7 tion with Pima County, Arizona, may participate in the 

8 planning, design, and construction of water recycling fa9 cilities and to enhance and restore riparian habitat in the 

10 Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Avra Valley 

11 west of the metropolitan Pima County area. 

12 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost 

13 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

14 25 percent of the cost of the project. 

15 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Federal funds provided under 

16 this section shall not be used for operation or maintenance 

17 of the project described in subsection (a). 

18 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

19 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

20 $14,000,000.’’. 

21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

22 for Public Law 102–575 is amended by inserting after the 

23 item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration 

Project.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### Marvalius Laclut SWIFT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 11, 2011.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert F. Moeller, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

*395Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Danilo Cruz-Carino, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

KELLY, Judge.

In this *Anders*
      *1*
      **appeal, Marvalius Laclut Swift challenges his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine and possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a church. After a thorough review of the record, we have found no reversible error and affirm Mr. Swift’s judgments and sentences. However, we agree with Mr. Swift’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs under sections 938.05(1) and 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), as he asserted in a timely motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).

Mr. Swift correctly contends that the assessment of $225 to the Criminal Justice Trust Fund must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) in effect at the time of his offenses. *See*§ 938.05(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007); *Torres v. State,*42 So.3d 914, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). With respect to the imposition of a $100 public defender fee, Mr. Swift is also correct that under the applicable version of the statute, he would only be liable for such fee if the trial court pronounced it at sentencing and informed him of his right to contest the amount at a hearing. *See*§ 938.29(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). Although it appears from the record that Mr. Swift disagreed with the amount of the fee awarded, it is not clear whether the court properly advised him of his right to a hearing to contest the amount. We therefore strike the public defender fee without prejudice to it being reimposed on remand after the proper procedures are followed. *See Del Valle v. State,*26 So.3d 650, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Finally, as to the $3 fee to “Teen Court Fund” under section 938.19, we affirm the assessment but remand for the trial court to correct the amended order assessing fines and costs to reflect the applicable ordinance in accordance with *Ayoub v. State,*901 So.2d 311, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WHATLEY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: THE NOMINATION PETITIONS OF 

PEARLINA S. STORY AS A DEMOCRATIC 

CANDIDATE FOR THE STATE 

REPRESENTATIVE IN THE 24TH 

LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 

OBJECTIONS OF: NICOLE M. SYLVESTER, 

LOREAL RJ SNELL, AND CHRISTOPHER 

PAUL SANDVIG

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 18 WAP 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 2022, the order of the Commonwealth Court, 

dated April 19, 2022, granting the Petition to Set Aside Nominating Petitions of Pearlina

S. Story, is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1194 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1194

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2007

 Mr. Lewis of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. 
Gary G. Miller of California) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

    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 ``Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to facilities and services) is amended by striking subchapter 
B.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' and inserting ``and 
        chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 
        4121),''.
            (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``section 4251 or''.
            (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (i) by striking ``imposed by--'' and all that 
                follows through ``with respect to'' and inserting 
                ``imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect to'', 
                and
                    (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
            (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code 
        is amended by striking ``Communications Services and''.
            (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``4261 or 4271''.
            (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
        amended by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by 
        striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating subparagraph 
        (D) as subparagraph (C).
            (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered more than 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 20


                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
                             ---------------------


  Harry Puglisi, Treasurer of The Money Store Investment Corporation. (the
"Servicer"), in accordance with Section 7.04 of The Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of November 30, 1996 wherein The Money
Store Investment Corporation is the "Servicer" states the following:

       (i)    the Servicer has fully complied with the provisions of Articles V
and VII;

       (ii)   a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1996 and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under my  supervision;  and

       (iii)   to the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout 1996 and there has
been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.


                                      THE MONEY STORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


                                      by:  /s/  Harry Puglisi
                                           ------------------
                                           Harry Puglisi
                                           Treasurer
#### Ramon PICHARDO, M.D., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.

No. 1D11-3701.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2011.

Ramon Pichardo, M.D., pro se, Appellant.

Nicholas W. Romanello, General Counsel, and Wings S. Benton, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Health, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s motion to relinquish jurisdiction or quash final order and remand for formal hearing is treated by the court as a concession that there was an error in procedure when the administrative complaint was not referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. In accor*951dance therewith, the final order being appealed herein is quashed and the matter is remanded with directions to refer the administrative complaint to DOAH for proceedings pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

VAN NORTWICK, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statements of financial condition and the consolidated
statements of operation of Unified Financial Services, Inc. filed as
part of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
report.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,395,843
<SECURITIES>                                 1,720,342
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,912,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,262,603
<PP&E>                                       4,062,103
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,472,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,498,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,514,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        27,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,672
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,498,577
<SALES>                                     23,448,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,448,483
<CGS>                                        8,508,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,508,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,970,567
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             361,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,063,269
<INCOME-TAX>                                   151,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            912,161
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   912,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of Eclipsys Corporation



|                                             |  |             
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Subsidiary Name                              |  | Jurisdiction
|                                             | 
|4114213 Canada, Inc.                         |  | Canada      
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys Holding 1 Corporation               |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys Healthcare IT (Singapore) PTE. LTD. |  | Singapore   
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys (Mauritius) Limited                 |  | Mauritius   
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys Canada Corporation                  |  | Canada      
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys International Corp.                 |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys LIS Holdings, LLC                   |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys RIS Canada, Inc.                    |  | Canada      
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys Solutions Corp.                     |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys Technologies Corporation            |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Enterprise Performance Systems, Inc.         |  | Missouri    
|                                             | 
|HVC Holdings Canada, Ltd.                    |  | Canada      
|                                             | 
|HVision, Inc.                                |  | Delaware    
|                                             | 
|Eclipsys (India) Private Limited             |  | India       
|                                             | 
|Van Slyck & Associates, Inc.                 |  | Arizona
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

January 27, 2015 

# Order

Clerk January 27, 2015

149168

- 9 (65)

DIANE NASH, Personal Rep resentative of the

ESTATE OF CHANCE AARON NASH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 149168

v COA: 309403

Ottawa CC: 10

- 002119

- NO

DUNCAN PARK COMMISSION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

DIANE NASH, Personal Representative of the

ESTATE OF CHANCE AARON NASH,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 149169

v COA: 314017

Ottawa CC: 12

- 002801

- NO

DUNCAN PARK TRUST, and EDWARD

LYSTRA, RODNEY GRISWOLD, and JERRY

SCOTT, Individually and as Trustees of the

DUNCAN PARK TRUST,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time to

file her brief on appeal is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if

submitted on or before January 30, 2015.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Tatianna MYLES.

No. 2011-KD-2694.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 498-437; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1713.

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., would grant.
#### John H. PATTERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna L. PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-2140.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1986.

John H. Patterson, pro se.

Donna L. Patterson, pro se.

Before POLITZ, WILLIAMS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John H. Patterson seeks *in forma pauperis*status to appeal the dismissal of his complaint. Finding the appeal frivolous, we dismiss it.

The present action is part of a series of complaints Patterson has filed against his former wife. In it he alleges that she wrongfully filed his 1978 income tax return and cashed the resulting refund check. He alleges that by doing this she deprived him of his constitutional rights. Giving his *pro se*complaint the most liberal construction, at best all we can glean from the pleadings is an attempt to secure damages on state law grounds.

The constitutional claims are patently frivolous; there is no connection between the former wife and any tortious governmental action. Patterson must be aware of this basic requirement because a virtually identical complaint was dismissed on that basis by the court in the Southern District of Georgia. *Patterson v. Patterson,*Misc. 484-40 (S.D.Ga.1984).

There being no federal claim, there is jurisdiction only if the diversity of citizenship requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are met. The complaint fails to allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction, even though Patterson was permitted an opportunity to *358amend his pleadings for that purpose. Patterson’s reliance on our opinion in a former case, *Patterson v. Patterson,*767 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1985) is misplaced. In fact, that opinion underscores the essential requirement of establishing the facts upon which to base diversity jurisdiction.

We find this appeal patently frivolous and that this matter is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

This complaint is the latest in a long line of meritless complaints filed by Patterson. Imposing monetary sanctions alone on an impecunious party, particularly one who is incarcerated, is not likely to effectively deter improper conduct. Other sanctions, such as refusing to accept further filings, must be considered. We now admonish and warn John H. Patterson that if he continues to file meritless complaints, one of the sanctions imposed will be the closing of the courthouse doors, disallowing the filing of any further civil actions by him absent prior court approval.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of McLeodUSA Incorporated and
subsidiaries for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         536,800
<SECURITIES>                                   493,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  279,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    47,400
<INVENTORY>                                     29,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,396,900
<PP&E>                                       1,873,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 243,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,530,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          415,100
<BONDS>                                      2,059,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                         12
<COMMON>                                         5,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,014,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,530,100
<SALES>                                        288,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,300
<CGS>                                          148,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  148,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>