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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 334 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 334

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
            relations treatment) to the products of Moldova.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 27, 2009

   Mr. Lugar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade 
            relations treatment) to the products of Moldova.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE ACT OF 
              1974 TO THE PRODUCTS OF MOLDOVA.

    (a) Presidential Determinations and Extension of Nondiscriminatory 
Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision of title IV of the Trade Act 
of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may--
            (1) determine that the denial of nondiscriminatory 
        treatment should no longer apply to the products of Moldova; 
        and
            (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
        respect to Moldova, proclaim the extension of nondiscriminatory 
        treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 
        Moldova.
    (b) Termination of Applicability of Title IV.--On and after the 
date on which the President extends nondiscriminatory treatment to the 
products of Moldova pursuant to subsection (a), title IV of the Trade 
Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to Moldova.
                                 <all>
```
#### Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Local 854, et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Thomas NUNEZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-50430

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 30, 2006.

Mary Ellen Felps, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*375Craig A. Gargotta, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Defendant-Appellee.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Nunez, Jr. (“Nunez”) filed a claim under the Social Security Act for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). After two evidentiary hearings, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Nunez’s claim and the Appeals Council affirmed. Treating the decision of the Appeals Council as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, Nunez filed suit in the district court for the Western District of Texas seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge who reviewed the record and briefs submitted by both parties. The district court entered final judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Nunez benefits. Nunez appeals to this Court.

Our review is limited to determining (1) whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the Commissioner’s decision, and (2) whether the Commissioner’s decision comports with relevant legal standards. *Jones v. Apfel,*174 F.3d 692, 693 (5th Cir.1999). We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, we find that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and is based on a proper application of the law. We affirm the decision of the district court to enter final judgment against Nunez.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ATS Medical, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors; a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 8, 2007              /s/ Michael R. Kramer   Name: Michael R. Kramer  Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Regina LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., CORP., Cross-Defendant-Appellee, Newburgh Nissan Car Dealership, Sebastian D’Amico, William Birmingham, Nelson Demeleo, George Harte, Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., David Innurago, John Breneger, Cross-Defendant-Appellee, Joseph DiRaffaele, Cross-Claim-Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-4629-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 20, 2006.

Regina Lewis, pro se, Newburgh, NY, for Appellant.

William H. Grae, Goldberg *&*Associates, New York, NY, for Cross-Defendants-Appellees.

John F. Moore, Ryan *&*Smallacombe, PLLC, New York, NY, for Cross-Claim-Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: THOMAS J. MESKILL, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Regina Lewis appeals *pro se*from a July 14, 2005 order of the District Court, *Lewis v. Nissan North America, Inc.,*2005 WL 1652924, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14037 (S.D.N.Y.2005), which adopted a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Theodore H. Katz and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff initially raised claims under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601*et seq.,*the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301*et seq.,*the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45*et seq.,*and the New York State Deceptive Practices Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349*et seq.,*as well as common-law claims of false arrest, conspiracy to defraud, medical malpractice, malicious prosecution, and defamation, alleging that she was misled with regard to the purchase of an automobile.

We have reviewed the record and relevant case law and conclude, substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s careful and comprehensive Report and Recommendation, that the District Court committed no error.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Sinclair Haberman et al., Respondents, v Zoning Board of Appeals of City of Long Beach et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.

Submitted May 29, 2012;

decided June 28, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action/proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
E 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

April 27, 1939 

Honorable W. Lee O*Danlel 

Governor a? Texas 

Austin, Taxes 

Dear Governor: 

ant reoelved. 

ve the power to 

ly from Los Angelee 

be eligible for assistance. 

been in California for three 

tanoe the~re, we are or the 

ilf to Texas would be unfair 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERBL OF 'L'EXAS 

By:(Slgned) A.S. Rollins 

A. s. Rollins 

Assistant 

. 

(slgnedf Gerald 0. Mann 

ATT@.NEY CZNERAL OF TEXAS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         840,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,900
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,303,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,002,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,385,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          873,400
<BONDS>                                      2,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,385,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               923,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  750,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                120,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           27040
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2133601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2169600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2169600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2169600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5269
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 27488
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22219)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### In re: Ralph Hartford KIMBRO, Jr.; Patricia Ann Kimbro, Debtors. Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Standing Trustee for Chapter 13, Appellant, v. Ralph Hartford Kimbro, Jr.; Patricia Ann Kimbro, Appellees.

No. 08-5871.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2011.

*931Before: MOORE and WHITE, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This case squarely presents a question of statutory interpretation that had split courts nationwide and has recently been resolved by the United States Supreme Court: whether, under a provision of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), an above-median-income debtor calculating his or her projected disposable income for purposes of a Chapter 13 plan confirmation may, when using Chapter 7’s “means test,” deduct for a Vehicle’s “ownership expense” even when the debtor owns the vehicle outright and is no longer making payments on it. This circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that above-median-income debtors may claim such an expense without regard to whether they are still making payments or they own their vehicle free and clear. *In*re *Kimbro,*389 B.R. 518 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.2008). The dissenting judge would have held that a vehicle ownership expense may only be claimed if a debtor is in fact incurring such an expense. *Id.*at 532 (Fulton, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court resolved the circuit dispute against the interpretation favored by the BAP. *Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A.,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 716, 178 L.Ed.2d 603 (2011). We REVERSE and REMAND to the BAP for reconsideration in light of *Ransom.*
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Annual Report of Medicore, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Thomas K. Langbein, Chief Executive Officer and
President of the Company, and Daniel R. Ouzts, Vice President of Finance,
Principal Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                     /s/ Thomas K. Langbein
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     THOMAS K. LANGBEIN, Chief Executive Officer
                                     and President


                                     /s/ Daniel R. Ouzts
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     DANIEL R. OUZTS, Vice President of Finance,
                                     Principal Financial Officer, Chief
                                     Accounting Officer and Treasurer

Dated: August 9, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 23




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-5524, 33-22850, 2-77932, 2-97291, 33-625, 33-45410, 33-53971, 33-59781,
333-82847 and 33-50960 of Angelica Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 13, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Angelica
Corporation and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended January 25, 2003
(which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs relating to (1) the adoption of a new accounting principle and (2)
the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures of financial
statement amounts related to the 2002 and 2001 financial statements that were
audited by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have
expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such
disclosures) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Angelica
Corporation for the year ended January 25, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
April 22, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         67,241
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  59,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    90,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,378
<PP&E>                                         48,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (20,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,040,951
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,581
<OTHER-SE>                                     (756,733)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,799
<SALES>                                        282,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               282,079
<CGS>                                          49,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               319,381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (90,789)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
National Indian Gaming Commission 

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region 

Fiscal Year 2007 and 2006 

Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2006 Increase (decrea

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming 

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Revenues 

Region I 43 2,208,190 46 2,080,369 (3) 127,821 Region II 58 7,796,488 56 7,674,794 2 121,693 Region III 44 2,840,585 45 2,718,914 (1) 121,672 Region IV 109 4,217,960 122 4,069,940 (13) 148,021 Region V 100 2,553,034 98 2,125,906 2 427,127 Region VI 28 6,399,841 27 6,219,100 1 180,742 Totals 382 26,016,098 394 24,889,022 (12) 1,127,075 Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through 2008. Region I Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Region II California, and Northern Nevada Region III Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada. Region IV 

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin Wyoming 

Region V Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Region VI Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.