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

###### National Science Foundation

                    The Director of the National Science Foundation has determined that the establishment of the Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Biological Sciences necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861*et seq.*                     This determination follows consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.                

*Name of Committee:*                     Proposal Review Panel for Emerging Frontiers in Biological Sciences (#44011).                

*Purpose:*                     To advise the National Science Foundation on the merit of proposals requesting financial support for research and research-related activities under the purview of the Office of Emerging Frontiers located in the Directorate of Biological Sciences.                

*Responsible NSF Official:*                     William Zamer, Office Director, Emerging Frontiers, Directorate for Biological Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/292-8400.                

Dated: July 8, 2009.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-16454 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37345

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

STEVEN RICHARD MITCHELL, JR. ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpub lished Opinion No. 674

Filed: October 15, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified life sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years

, for second degree murder

, affirmed

.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, At torney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

______________________________________________
Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Steven Richard Mitchell, Jr. pled guilty to second degree murder . I.C. § § 18

- 4001, 18

- 4002, 18

- 4003 . The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified term of life imprisonment, with

a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years

. Mitchell also fil ed an I.C.R. 35 motion for

reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Mitchell appeals , asserting that his

sentence is excessive

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

fact ors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2 d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Mitchell ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Summa, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 909]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered June 5, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the cumulative effect of misconduct by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial and constituted reversible error is without merit. “Although the prosecutor, on more than one occasion during [her] summation, overstepped the bounds of proper advocacy, we conclude that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was no significant probability the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the errors not occurred and thus, he was not deprived thereby of a fair trial” *(People v Trinidad,*22 AD3d 612 [2005]; *see People v Joseph,*20 AD3d 435 [2005]; *People v Williams,*13 AD3d 660 [2004]; *People v Oglesby,*7 AD3d 736 [2004]; *People v Johnson,*267 AD2d 403, 403-404 [1999]; *see also People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1240 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count resident time 

spent in a critical access hospital as resident time spent in a nonprovider 

setting for purposes of making Medicare direct and indirect graduate 

medical education payments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2019 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to count 

resident time spent in a critical access hospital as resident time spent in a nonprovider setting for purposes 

of making Medicare direct and indirect graduate medical 

education payments. 

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 ‘‘Restoring Rural 

5 Residencies Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1240 IS

1 SEC. 2. COUNTING RESIDENT TIME SPENT IN A CRITICAL 

2 ACCESS HOSPITAL AS RESIDENT TIME SPENT 

3 IN A NONPROVIDER SETTING FOR PURPOSES 

4 OF MAKING MEDICARE DIRECT AND INDI5 RECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PAY6 MENTS. 

7 (a) GME.—Section 1886(h)(4) of the Social Security 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)) is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘subpara10 graphs (J) and (K)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs 

11 (J), (K), and (L)’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub13 paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(L) TREATMENT OF CRITICAL ACCESS

15 HOSPITALS.—Effective for cost reporting peri16 ods beginning on or after July 1, 2020, such 

17 rules shall provide that a critical access hospital 

18 (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1)) is deemed 

19 to be a nonprovider setting for purposes of de20 termining the hospital’s number of full-time 

21 equivalent residents under this subsection.’’. 

22 (b) IME.—Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(iv)(II) of the So23 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(iv)(II)) is 

24 amended by adding at the end the following sentence: ‘‘Ef25 fective for discharges occurring on or after July 1, 2020, 

26 for purposes of this subclause, a critical access hospital 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1240 IS

1 (as defined in section 1861(mm)(1)) is deemed to be a 

2 nonprovider setting.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 4.49
 Agreement
 AGREEMENT
 Party A(  ): GIGAMEDIA (HK) LIMITED
 
 Party B  : Mi Saiyu (Chinese name  )
 
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Article 1




---



##### 



Article 2
 Article 3
 Article 4
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
  2




---



##### 



Party A(CHINESE CHARACTER): GIGAMEDIA (HK) LIMITED
    
    Party B(CHINESE CHARACTER): Mi Saiyu(CHINESE CHARACTER)
 
  3




---



##### 



Appendix I
 Confirmation of Draw down
 
 ( )
 Mi Saiyu (Chinese name  )
  4
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report on form 10-K of Sonus Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, EllenB. Richstone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 2, 2007 |   | /s/ ELLEN B.  RICHSTONE                                   |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Ellen B. Richstone                                        |
|                      |   | *Chief  Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
ex10_19.htm


Exhibit 10.19












2013 INCENTIVE PLAN FOR CERTAIN KEY EMPLOYEES







The Company has a discretionary annual incentive program under which exempt salaried employees may earn cash payments based on a percentage of base annual salary.  The actual percent is based on a variety of guidelines including performance levels of the respective business units primarily measured by operating income subject to certain adjustments.







The payment to an employee is based upon (i) their assigned grade level, (ii) actual company earnings achieved relative to a pre-determined target, which is adjusted upward if company performance exceeds target and reduced if company performance is less than target, and (iii) base salary paid during the fiscal year.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-61940 and333-66982 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-43334,333-53970, 333-54932, 333-105215 and 333-124777 on Form S-8of Sonus Networks, Inc. of our reports dated March 13, 2006, relatingto the financial statements of Sonus Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2005 and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on theeffectiveness of Sonus Network, Inc.’s internal control over financialreporting because of material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Sonus Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, MassachusettsMarch 13, 2006

----
Exhibit 32.2





SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,  Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, 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.




Dated:December 13, 2011By:/s/ Marc T. RayMarc T. RayChief Financial Officer
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 Zevotek, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director 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; and





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





Dated:  November 14, 2011





/s/ Robert BabkieRobert Babkie, President, Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Financial Officer and Director

(Principal Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 Annual Report of Salary.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), G. Kent Plunkett, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Kenneth S. Goldman, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof 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 to our best knowledge: 

 

 

This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be“filed” for any purpose whatsoever. 

Date: June 28, 2007 

/s/ G. Kent Plunkett 

                                                                   

G. Kent Plunkett

Chairman, President and Chief 

Executive Officer

Date: June 28, 2007 

/s/ Kenneth S. Goldman 

                                                                   

Kenneth S. Goldman

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial 

Officer and Treasurer
#### CALVIN JOHNSON AND ANOTHER v. ANTON A. GIESE AND OTHERS.1

February 3, 1950.

No. 35,054.

*Wegner, KoKlan & Santee,*for appellant.

*Henry*<?. *Young,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 40 N. W. (2d) 909.

Loring, Chief Justice.

This case comes here on an appeal from an order denying defendant Anton A. Giese’s motion to amend the findings, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. •

The order is nonappealable, unless it falls, as contended by appellant, within M. S. A. 558.215, which provides for appeals from any order or interlocutory judgment made and entered pursuant to §§ 558.04, 558.07, 558.14, or 558.21, relating to partition proceedings.

In the case at bar, brought to partition real estate, defendants counterclaimed for reformation of certain instruments affecting the title, and the order appealed from concerns only the counter*186claim and expressly excludes from its terms the partition proceeding. Careful examination of the sections above cited, relating to partition, discloses that the order appealed from does not fall within the *terms of any one of*them. Therefore, respondents’ contention that the order appealed from is not appealable should be sustained.

Appeal dismissed.
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for

the District of New Jersey (Jonathan W. Romankow, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant STEPHEN PIRRONE (David Holman, Esq., appearing), for an order granting a

continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter; and four continuances having been

previously granted; and the defendant being aware that he has the right under 18 U.S.C. § 3 161(b)

to have the matter brought to trial within seventy (70) days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161; and the defendant through his

attorney having waived such rights and consented to the continuance; and for good and sufficient

cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the

following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations currently are in progress, and both the United States and the

defendant desire additional time to enter a plea in Court, which would thereby render trial of this

matter unnecessary.

2. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned continuance.

3. The grant of a continuance will likely conserve judicial resources.

4. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends

of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the
shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. WILLIAM 11 WALLS

United States District Judge

Fonn and eniTy

consented tø:

JONATHAN ROMANKOW

Assistant U.S. Attorney

DAVID HOLMAN, Esq.

Counsel for Defendant Stephen Pirronc
S. 1196 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1715 Linnerud 

Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NAT. BANK & TRUST CO. OF CHICAGO v. EHRHART.

No. 48.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

Feb. 29, 1940.

Thomas McCoy, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

A. A. Kelly, of South Pittsburg, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a motion for a summary judgment as to one of the issues made by the pleadings. The question to be determined is whether the note sued upon is barred by the statute of limitations of the State of Tennessee.

The note is dated April 1, 1929, and was executed in the State of Illinois. In December 1934, the payor moved to the State of Tennessee, this being before the statute of limitations had run in the State of Illinois.

The defendant insists that the motion for summary judgment must be determined by the pleadings, and that the order made upon the findings in the pre-trial conference would not be for consideration. This order contains certain agreements of counsel which conforms to the facts above stated.

It is to be remembered that the plea of the statute of limitations is an optional plea by a defendant and it is not incumbent upon a plaintiff to set out affirmatively that the subject matter sued upon is within the statute. The plea of the *200statute of limitations becomes an affirmative defense.

It is my judgment that the decision on the motion for a summary judgment is to be made upon the whole record. Otherwise the pre-trial conference would be vanity..

It seems that such question as raised in this case is well settled under authority of the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee wherein it is held that the statute of limitation does not run against a non-resident, but only against a resident of the State of Tennessee. That the right to sue in this state begins when a defendant comes into the jurisdiction of the state, and that the statute of limitations runs from that time. Kempe v. Bader, 86 Tenn. 189, 6 S.W. 126.

Under this authority I am of the opinion that the plea of the statute of limitations in this case is not well taken and the motion for a summary judgment will be sustained. The case will stand for trial on the other issues made by the pleas.

Let an order be prepared for entry in accord with this opinion.
#### MULDOWNEY v. SEABERG ELEVATOR CO., Inc.

Civ. No. 1701.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. 7, 1941.

William Walzer, of New York City, for the motion.

August Zolotorofe, of Brooklyn, N. Y., opposed.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a motion on behalf of the defendant for a bill of particulars.

Demands 1, 2, 7 and 9 should be answered ; as to demand 8 it will be sufficient for plaintiff to give the number of hours per week of each week he will claim he was actively employed and engaged in the work of the defendant, and he will not be required to give a schedule of the days and hours.

It is true that the institution of the action is a sufficient demand, where a demand is required, but plaintiff having alleged the making of a demand prior to the institution of this action, he should answer that demand.

Demands 3, 4, S and 6 are disallowed, as the plaintiff could not answer them without obtaining such information by an examination before trial' of the defendant, its officers, books and papers. The information so requested is in the exclusive possession of the defendant, and not of the plaintiff.

Settle order on notice.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyle Watson, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 581]

The defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment was correctly denied because the contention that his plea allocution was insufficient could have been raised on his direct appeal and there has been no retroactively effective change in the law controlling that issue *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [a]; *Policano v Herbert,*7 NY3d 588, 603 [2006]). The defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel was improperly raised on this CPL 440.10 motion. The proper procedure for addressing such a claim is an application for a writ of error coram nobis addressed to this Court *(see People v Bachert,*69 NY2d 593, 595-596 [1987]; *People v Velez,*286 AB2d 406 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.