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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7305 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7305

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify payment 
   rules for manual wheelchairs under part B of the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2018

   Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify payment 
   rules for manual wheelchairs under part B of the Medicare program.

    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 ``Choices for Increased Mobility Act 
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING PAYMENT RULES FOR MANUAL WHEELCHAIRS UNDER PART B OF 
              THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

    (a) Exclusion.--Section 1862(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395y(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (P), by striking the semicolon at the 
        end and inserting ``, and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(Q) in the case of a manual wheelchair furnished 
                on or after January 1, 2019, where such expenses exceed 
                the amount recognized under section 1834(a)(1)(B)(ii) 
                for such wheelchair by reason of inclusion of any 
                titanium construction materials included in the base of 
                such wheelchair;''.
    (b) No Effect on Fee Schedule.--Section 1834(a)(1) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395m(a)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(J) Exclusion of certain manual wheelchair 
                components from fee schedule amount.--Beginning January 
                1, 2019, any payment amount recognized under 
                subparagraph (B)(ii) with respect to a manual 
                wheelchair shall be treated as not including payment 
                for any titanium construction materials included in the 
                base of such wheelchair.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 16, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 4 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 1 p.m. Central Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Ellen Smiley. For more information please contact Ms. Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. 2010-25464 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
585 A.2d 412

#### ANNA VENNERSBORG v. BOARD OF REVIEW AND RUSSELL E. RITTER.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EUGENE JONES.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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

August 6, 2009 

s0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

138063 & (13) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138063 

 COA: 287863 

Saginaw CC: 85-006602-FH 

FELTON WOODS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand 

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                  1,502,111
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                             802,326
<ALLOWANCES>                             (665,584)
<INVENTORY>                               156,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        2,939,183
<PP&E>                                  8,511,412
<DEPRECIATION>                         (2,073,295)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         14,980,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   6,796,730
<BONDS>                                 2,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                  153,550
<OTHER-SE>                              5,780,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           14,980,542
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          681,369
<CGS>                                     546,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             546,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          423,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         12,622
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (300,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (300,588)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (300,588)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              ($0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              ($0.06)
        

</TABLE>
No. 13,438.

#### Flint *v.*Burnell et al.

Filed Dec. 14, 1888.

Bill op *Exceptions.*— Long-Hand *Report of*Evidence.— *Use of Words “Here Insert."*— Practice.—Oral testimony taken by the court stenographer can not be brought into a bill of exceptions by using the words *“*here insert ” in a skeleton bill.

From the Lagrange Circuit Court.

*S. J. Peelle*and *W. L. Taylor,*for appellant.

*O. L. Ballou,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The questions in this ease can not be decided without the evidence, and that is not properly in the record. The counsel who prepared the bill of exceptions wrote a skeleton bill, and attempted to make provision for the insertion of the oral testimony taken by the stenographer by using the words *“*here insert,” without setting out the evidence. This course is not the proper one. At common law all evidence must be incorporated in the bill before it is signed. *Irwin*v. *Smith,*72 Ind. 482, and cases cited pp. 488-489.

Our statute modifies the common law rule, but it does not so far change it as to enable a party to get the evidence into the record in the method adopted in this case. *Wagoner*v. *Wilson,*108 Ind. 210; *Stone*v. *Brown, ante,*p. 78.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

HERITAGEOAKS BANCORP

 

QuarterlyReport on Form 10Q

forthe Quarter ended June 30, 2002

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

 

The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer of Heritage OaksBancorp (the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, as filed by the Company with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which thisCertification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements ofSection 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information containedin this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  August 6, 2002 | /S/ Margaret A. Torres                               |   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Margaret A. Torres                                   |
|                        | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
BEDFORD BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                                   EXHIBIT 11

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                                                        June 30                            June 30     
                                                               --------------------------       ----------------------------
                                                                  1997             1996             1997              1996  
                                                                  ----             ----             ----              ----  

<S>                                                           <C>              <C>            <C>               <C>       
Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $407,000         $424,000       $1,178,000        $1,177,000
                                                                ========         ========       ==========        ==========

Primary and Fully Diluted:

Average Shares Outstanding, Net of
  ESOP Shares (60,847 and 68,749 at June 30,
    1997 and 1996, respectively.) . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1,080,632       1,115,240         1,081,075         1,123,771
                                                               =========       =========         =========         =========

Per Share Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          $.38             $.38            $1.09             $1.05
                                                                    ====             ====            =====             =====

</TABLE>


     Earnings per share of common stock for the three and nine months ended June
30, 1997 and 1996 have been determined by dividing net income for the periods by
the weighted  average number of shares of common stock  outstanding  net of ESOP
shares.



                                      -13-
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D20-2909

_____________________________

TASHA ROYSTER,

Appellant,

v.

NORMAN BURMAN, JEROME 

MADISON, PHILLIP MADISON, JR.,

BRENDA ROBINSON, and THE 

ESTATE OF CLEASTER YOUNG,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

September 29, 2021

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) (allowing review of 

orders entered on only “authorized and timely” motions for relief 

from judgment).

B.L. THOMAS, BILBREY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Tasha Royster, pro se, Appellant.

Andrew J. Power and Susan S. Thompson of Smith, Thompson, 

Shaw, Colón & Power, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.
584 A.2d 229

#### SUSAN P. NICHOLSON v. JOHN NICHOLSON.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 389

#### TOWER CRANES OF AMERICA, INC. v. JOSEPH C. BONANNO.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,561
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             256
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         49,400
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,393
<DEPOSITS>                                     135,978
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,709
<LONG-TERM>                                     48,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 265,393
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,382
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  403
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,785
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,677
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,250
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,535
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,231
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 35,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,743
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,743
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.06
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,248
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,939
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,438
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,878
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,791
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,791
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2009-KH-2291.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Johnson, Anthony; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 02-06-0296; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KW 1240.

Writ granted in part; otherwise denied. The district court is ordered to provide relator with an estimate of the costs of reproducing public records relator has requested and to which relator is entitled. La. Const, art. XII, Section 3; R.S. 44:31; R.S. 44:31.1; *State ex rel. Leonard v. State,*96-1889 (La.6/13/97), 695 So.2d 1325; *State ex rel. Level v. State,*99-2266 (La.12/17/99), 751 So.2d 869; *Range v. Moreau,*96-1607 (La.9/3/96), 678 So.2d 537. In all other respects, the application is denied.

CLARK, J., would deny.
584 A.2d 225

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TEDDY ROSE.

May 23, 1990.

This matter having come before the Court on defendant’s motion for leave to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial of the guilt phase of his capital murder proceedings on the basis that this Court’s rule announced in *State v. Gerald,*113 *N.J.*40, 549 A.2d 792 (1988), required a new guilt-phase trial; and

*158The Court having granted leave to appeal, 122 *N.J.*156, 584 A.2d 225 (1990), having considered the papers submitted by the parties, and having heard the oral argument of counsel; and

The Court having decided that its disposition should be communicated to the parties and to the public in the form of the within Order, with the opinion presenting more fully the reasons for the Court’s decision to be issued in due course; and

Good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the Order of the Law Division denying the defendant a new trial of the guilt phase is affirmed.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this Order. Justices HANDLER and O’HERN dissent from the Order. (For full opinion see 120 *N.J.*61, 576 A.2d 235).
#### Keith JACKSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. SC10-1405.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 26, 2011.

Leonard Scott Feuer of Dell and Schae-fer, Chartered, Hollywood, FL, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent.

CANADY, C.J.

We have for review *Jackson v. State,*No. 4D10-2100 (Fla. 4th DCA Jun. 15, 2010), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The Fourth District relied upon its prior decision *Dennis v. State,*17 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). At the time the Fourth District issued *Jackson, Dennis*was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. *See*art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; *Jollie v. State,*405 So.2d 418 (Fla.1981).

We stayed proceedings in this case pending disposition of *Dennis v. State,*51 So.3d 456 (Fla.2010), in which we determined that where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. In so holding, we disapproved the Fourth District’s reasoning. We then issued an order directing the State to show cause why this Court should not exercise jurisdiction in the instant case, summarily quash the order on review, and remand for reconsideration in light of *Dennis.*The State has filed a response conceding that “given the procedural posture of this case ... this cause should be remanded for reconsideration.”

We accordingly grant the petition for review in the instant case. The order under review is quashed, and this matter is remanded to the Fourth District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in *Dennis.*

It is so ordered.

PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terrell KELLEY and Troy Smith.

No. 2011-KK-0821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Smith, Troy; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 498-584; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0151.

Denied.
647 A.2d 470

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD J. WEBER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 23, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court recommending that RICHARD J. WEBER of NEPTUNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, be publicly reprimanded for violation of *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to provide client information enough to make informed decisions) and *RPC*8.4(e) (misrepresentations), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and RICHARD J. WEBER is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.