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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 902 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 902

To amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to clarify 
the exemption for recreational vessel support employees, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2005

 Mr. Martinez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act to clarify 
the exemption for recreational vessel support employees, 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 ``Recreational Marine Employment Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL VESSEL WORKER EXEMPTION.

    The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 901 
et seq.) is amended as follows:
            (1) Section 2 (33 U.S.C. 902) is amended--
                    (A) in paragraph (3)--
                            (i) so that subparagraph (C) reads as 
                        follows:
                    ``(C) individuals employed by or at, or engaged in 
                the construction or maintenance of, a recreational 
                marine facility or structure;'' and
                            (ii) so that subparagraph (F) reads as 
                        follows:
                    ``(F) individuals employed primarily to build, 
                repair, test, maintain, accommodate, buy, sell, store, 
                restore, transport by land, or dismantle a recreational 
                vessel;''; and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (22) as paragraph 
                (24) and inserting after paragraph (21) the following 
                new paragraphs:
            ``(22) The term `recreational marine facility or structure' 
        means a place used primarily to build, repair, test, maintain, 
        accommodate, buy, sell, store, restore, or dismantle 
        recreational vessels.
            ``(23) The term `recreational vessel' means a vessel 
        manufactured primarily for pleasure use.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Tart

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 530

No. 215P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-592)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 08/23/07

3. Denied 08/23/07
Exhibit 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gexa Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Neil Leibman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



________________________________________
Neil Leibman
Chief Executive Officer
Dated: November 14, 2003




                                       25
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group, Reproduction, Andrology, and Gynecology Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         June 22, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dennis Leszczynski, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2717.                         *leszczyd@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 19, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-12236 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
-  Home 
        -  About NIDDK 
        -  Strategic Plans & Reports 
        -  DMICC: Coordinating the Federal Investment in Diabetes Programs To Improve the Health of Americans 

Strategic Plans & Reports
-  United States Renal Data SystemShow child pages    -  Annual Data Report 
  -  Prior Data Reports 
  -  For Researchers 
  -  ESRD Quarterly Update 
  -  Data Query Tools 
  -  USRDS News 
  -  About USRDS 
-  Strategic Planning for Supported Research 
-  DMICC: Coordinating the Federal Investment in Diabetes Programs To Improve the Health of Americans 

**For email updates**For RSS updates

# DMICC: Coordinating the Federal Investment in Diabetes Programs To Improve the Health of Americans

DMICC: Coordinating the Federal Investment in Diabetes Programs To Improve the Health of Americans highlights the activities and accomplishments of the statutory Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee (DMICC).

The publication includes:
          - The history, goals, and membership of the Committee, including mission statements related to diabetes efforts of the 35 DMICC member organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Veterans Health Administration. 
          - Examples of federal diabetes efforts coordinated by organizations in the DMICC. 
          - Highlights of major areas of successful collaboration, such as diabetes efforts in special high risk populations, the development of consistent guidelines and diabetes-related measurements, and strategic planning for diabetes research programs.

### View Publication

          - Full Report  (PDF, 2.15 MB)  
          - Executive Summary  (PDF, 211.74 KB)
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 955 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study 

to determine the suitability and feasibility of including in the National 

Park System certain sites in Williamson County, Tennessee, relating 

to the Battle of Franklin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special 

resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility 

of including in the National Park System certain sites 

in Williamson County, Tennessee, relating to the Battle 

of Franklin. 

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 ‘‘Franklin National Bat5 tlefield Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 
2 

•S 955 IS

1 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (2) STUDY AREA.—The term ‘‘study area’’ 

4 means the cities of Brentwood, Franklin, Triune, 

5 Thompson’s Station, and Spring Hill, Tennessee. 

6 SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

8 special resource study of sites in the study area relating 

9 to the Battle of Franklin to determine— 

10 (1) the national significance of the sites; and 

11 (2) the suitability and feasibility of including 

12 the sites in the National Park System. 

13 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The study conducted under 

14 subsection (a) shall include the analysis and recommenda15 tions of the Secretary on— 

16 (1) the effect on the study area of including the 

17 sites in the National Park System; and 

18 (2) whether the sites could be included in an 

19 existing unit of the National Park System or other 

20 federally designated unit in the State of Tennessee. 

21 (c) CONSULTATION.—In conducting the study under 

22 subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with— 

23 (1) appropriate Federal agencies and State and 

24 local government entities; and 

25 (2) interested groups and organizations. 
3 

•S 955 IS

1 (d) APPLICABLE LAW.—The study required under 

2 subsection (a) shall be conducted in accordance with Pub3 lic Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.). 

4 SEC. 4. REPORT. 

5 Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 

7 on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 

8 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Sen9 ate a report that describes— 

10 (1) the findings of the study; and 

11 (2) any conclusions and recommendations of the 

12 Secretary. 

13 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

15 as are necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ
#### In re M.C., R.C.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 653

No. 557P06

Respondent’s (Ray C.) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-158)

Denied 01/25/07
II 

Calendar No. 270 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 891 

[Report No. 109–169] 

To extend the water service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills 

Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Nebraska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2005 

Mr. HAGEL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

OCTOBER 27, 2005 

Reported by Mr. DOMENICI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To extend the water service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, 

Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, 

Nebraska. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AINSWORTH UNIT, SANDHILLS DIVISION, PICK4 SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

6 extend for the period described in subsection (b) the water 
2 

•S 891 RS

1 service contract for the Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Divi2 sion, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Nebraska, con3 sisting of— 

4 (1) the water service contract entered into by 

5 the Secretary of the Interior under— 

6 (A) section 9(e) of the Reclamation Project 

7 Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(e)); 

8 (B) section 9(c) of the Act of December 

9 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887, chapter 665); 

10 (C) the Act of August 21, 1954 (68 Stat. 

11 757, chapter 781); and 

12 (D) the Act of May 18, 1956 (70 Stat. 

13 160, chapter 285); and 

14 (2) the water service contract for the set project 

15 located in Cherry, Brown, and Rock Counties, Ne16 braska, for the use of a part of the waters of the 

17 Snake River, a tributary of the Niobrara River. 

18 (b) PERIOD OF EXTENSION.—The water service con19 tract described in subsection (a) shall be extended for 4 

20 years after the date on which the contract expires under 

21 the water service contract and law in existence before the 

22 date of enactment of this Act. 

Calendar No. 270 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 891 

[Report No. 109–169] 

A BILL 

To extend the water service contract for the 

Missouri Basin Program, Nebraska. Ainsworth Unit, Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan 

OCTOBER 27, 2005 

Reported without amendment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6593
ROBERT MORGAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE TRENT, Warden, West Virginia Penitentiary, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-93-740-5) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Robert Morgan, Appellant Pro Se. Silas Bent Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate r eview. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly 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
**Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements listed below, of our report dated February 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

| - |       | Form S-8 (No. 333-05561) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                              |
|---|--------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - |                                | Form S-8 (No. 333-75551) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                           |
| - |                                | Form S-8 (No. 333-52008) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                           |
| - |                                | Form S-8 (No. 333-73470) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc;                                                            |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 33-95522) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,375,000 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                                                    |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 333-29477) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,600,000 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                                                   |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 333-42419) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,000,000 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;                                                                                   |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 33-78016) and related Prospectus pertaining to 360,000 shares of common stock, 180,000 warrants, and 1,005,000 other shares of common stock by sellingstockholders of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.; |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 333-51070) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of 2,213,334 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.; and                                                           |
| - |                                | Form S-3 (No. 333-82810) and related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of 1,500,000 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.                                                                |

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Denver, Colorado March 26, 2003
The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DONNY GEORGE, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-99-18 DECISION

On September 16,2009, the defendant was sentenced a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years with five (5) years suspended for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent, a felony. The Court recommends the defendant be placed in the Missoula Pre-Release Center, if determined appropriate by the Department of Corrections.

*7On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was advised of his right to be represented by counsel. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>

                        The Multicare Companies, Inc.
                      Computation of earnings per share

                                 (Unaudited)

                    (In thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>


                                                          Year ended
                                                      December 31, 1996

  <S>                                                      <C>

  Income per common and common equivalent share:
    Income before extraordinary item                       $ 28,737
    Net Income                                               25,910

    Weighted average number of common and common
      equivalent shares outstanding                          28,062
    Income before extraordinary item per common
      and common equivalent share                          $   1.02
    Net income per common and common equivalent share      $    .92
  Income per common and common equivalent share assuming
  full dilution:
    Income before extraordinary item                       $ 28,737

    Net income                                             $ 25,910
    Adjustments to income:
    Interest expense and amortization of debt
      issuance costs relating to convertible
      debt, net of tax                                     $  4,022
    Adjusted net income                                    $ 29,932

    Weighted average number of common and common
      equivalent shares outstanding                          28,196
    Convertible debt shares                                   4,976
    Adjusted shares                                          33,172

  Income before extraordinary item per common share
      assuming full dilution                               $    .99

  Net income per common share assuming full dilution       $    .90

</TABLE>
JONATHAN HENRY

, Appellant,

v.

THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL CONFLICT AND CIVIL REGIONAL COUNSEL

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREO F IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1107

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

. Jonathan Henry, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael J. Titus, Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO

, WETHERELL
, and BILBREY
, J J

. , CONCUR.