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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 755

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a minimum 

geographic cost-of-practice index value for physicians’ services furnished 

under the Medicare Program of 1. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2003

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico 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 establish 

a minimum geographic cost-of-practice index value for 

physicians’ services furnished under the Medicare Program of 1.

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; FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find7 ings: 
2

•HR 755 IH 

1 (1) Americans have paid taxes in to the medi2 care program equally across the country and every 

3 American should have access to quality health care. 

4 (2) There is a national market for health care 

5 providers. 

6 (3) Increasingly, private insurance companies 

7 tie their reimbursement rates to those paid by medi8 care. 

9 (4) The physician fee schedule formula for 

10 medicare currently includes several adjustments for 

11 variable costs throughout the nation. While it is ap12 propriate for the cost of running a practice to reflect 

13 overhead differences, physicians should not be com14 pensated for their time differently based on where 

15 they live. 

16 (5) Medicare beneficiaries pay the same part B 

17 premium regardless of location which forces sub18 sidization of higher reimbursement areas by seniors 

19 in lower reimbursement areas without any cor20 responding benefit. 

21 (6) Areas of the country that currently receive 

22 the lowest reimbursement from medicare are often 

23 the same areas that are experiencing the greatest 

24 shortage of physicians. Attracting more physicians 
3

•HR 755 IH 

1 to these areas cannot be achieved without greater 

2 equity in medicare reimbursement. 

3 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOOR ON WORK GEOGRAPHIC 

4 ADJUSTMENT. 

5 Section 1848(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 1395w–4(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(E) FLOOR AT 1.0 ON WORK GEOGRAPHIC

9 INDICES.—After calculating the work geo10 graphic indices in subparagraph (A)(iii), for 

11 purposes of payment for services furnished on 

12 or after January 1, 2004, the Secretary shall 

13 increase the work geographic index to 1.00 for 

14 any locality for which such geographic index is 

15 less than 1.00.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-39956 and
333-104705) and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-70148 and 333-84852) of UbiquiTel Inc. of our report dated March 10,
2005 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 14, 2005

---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Jones, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 889]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03). Defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered *(see People v Aguayo,*37 AD3d 1081 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 981 [2007]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. “Contrary to the contention of defendant, there is no requirement that he recite the facts underlying the crime to which he pleaded guilty . . . , and the record establishes that he confirmed County Court’s recitation of those facts” *(id.; see People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 781 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  CEO 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 Focus Enhancements, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brett Moyer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
  (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.
  /s/Brett A. Moyer
  Brett A. Moyer
 Chief Executive Officer
 November 15, 2004
  *The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Focus Enhancements, Inc. and such statement will be retained by Focus Enhancements, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
  36
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,209,452
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      11,057,414
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             3,600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               986,972
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      56,442,787
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        56,408,382
<LOANS>                                    233,967,317
<ALLOWANCE>                                    882,800      
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             311,613,437
<DEPOSITS>                                 256,129,172
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,986,109
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,979
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,463,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             311,613,437
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,563,479
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,047,084
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                68,691
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            11,679,254
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,182,919
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,496,335
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              94,797
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,477,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,505,749
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,505,749
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,231,649
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,272,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               882,800
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              882,800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           175,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        707,800
        

</TABLE>
[No. 55450-6-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### Preview Properties, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Brad Landis, *Respondent.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-20900-2, James A. Doerty, J., entered October 21, November 17, and December 2, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Becker, and Ellington, *JJ.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ANTHONY CANNON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00048

- CMH

- 3; 1:16

- cv 00739

- CMH )

Submitted : January 23, 20 20 Decided: January 27, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STAT ES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (201 8 ) motion. The order is n ot appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 53(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cannon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabili ty , deny Cannon’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proce ss. DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mikel D. Hackett, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 766]

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of two counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2], [4]) and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his statement to the police on the ground that it was the product of an illegal search. We reject that contention. The People presented evidence at the suppression hearing establishing that defendant’s mother gave the police her permission to enter the premises where she resided, in order to search for defendant *(see People v Santiago,*41 AD3d 1172, 1173-1174 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 964 [2007]), and the court was entitled to resolve credibility issues in favor of the People *(see generally People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the record supports the court’s determination that he voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights when he signed a waiver form in the presence of two police officers *(see People v Youngblood,*294 AD2d 954, 955 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 704 [2002]). Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, both with respect to the credibility of the People’s witnesses and the elements of the crimes *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). At trial, the victim and two other eyewitnesses identified defendant as the victim’s assailant, and defendant’s statement to the police included details that would not have been known by an individual who was not involved in the robbery. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 24 Power of AttorneyReports Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 March 4, 2004 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of The Washington Post Company, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
called the Company), hereby constitutes and appoints DONALD E. GRAHAM, JOHN
B. MORSE, JR. and DIANA M. DANIELS, and each of them, his or her true and
lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power to act without the others
and with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in
his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and
all reports required to be filed by the Company pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any and all amendments thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises as fully and to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his or her substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof. /s/
            Donald E. Graham
        
        /s/ George J. Gillespie, IIIDonald
            E. Graham, Chairman of the
        
        George J. Gillespie, III, DirectorBoard
            and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
            Executive Officer)and Director/s/
            John B. Morse, Jr.
        
        /s/ Ralph E. GomoryJohn B.
            Morse, Jr., Vice
        
        Ralph E. Gomory, DirectorPresident-Finance
            (Principal Financialand Accounting
            Officer)/s/
            Warren E. Buffett
        
        /s/ Ronald L. OlsonWarren
            E. Buffett, Director
        
        Ronald L. Olson, Director/s/
            Daniel B. Burke
        
        /s/ Alice M. RivlinDaniel
            B. Burke, Director
        
        Alice M. Rivlin, Director/s/
            Barry Diller
        
        /s/ Richard D. SimmonsBarry
            Diller, Director
        
        Richard D. Simmons, Director/s/
            John L. Dotson Jr.
        
        /s/ George W. WilsonJohn L.
            Dotson Jr., Director
        
        George W. Wilson, Director
[No. 31684-6-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Melvin Lewis Hughes, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 03-1-03389-0, Lisa R. Worswick, J., entered April 22, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J. Pro Tem., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, C.J., and Houghton, J.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.12

                             RESOLVE STAFFING, INC.
                      EXTENSION OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE
                              DUE FEBRUARY 3, 2003


Number             1
       ----------------------------


Principal: $ 40,000
           ------------------------


Original Issue Date:   June 3, 2002
                    ---------------



Registered Holder:  Barbara Green
                   ----------------
                       (name)

     WHEREAS, Resolve Staffing,  Inc., a Nevada corporation,  and its subsidiary
Integra Staffing,  Inc., a Florida corporation  (collectively referred to as the
"Company") with principal  offices at 105 N. Falkenburg Road, Suite B, Tampa, FL
33619,  issued a promissory  note to Barbara Green whose post office  address is
5102 Redwillow Court, Tampa, Florida 33624 (the "Holder") dated June 3, 2002 and
due February 3, 2003 ("Maturity Date"), said note being secured by the Company's
accounts  receivable  and interest rate at 12% per annum,  payable  quarterly in
arrears.

     WHEREAS,  the Company wishes to extend the Maturity Date of the note for 90
day and the Holder wishes to provide the Company the  opportunity  to extend the
note for said periods under the following conditions."

1.   The Holder  hereby  agrees to extend the  maturity  date of the note for an
     initial 30-day period until Martch 3, 2003.

2.   The Company  hereby agrees to pay the Holder the accrued  interest  through
     the original Maturity Date on or before March 3, 2003.

3.   Upon the  agreed  payment of the  accrued  interest  by March 3, 2003,  the
     Holder hereby  agrees to extend the maturity date for an additional  90-day
     period until June 3, 2003.

4.   All of the other  terms and  conditions  of the  promissory  note remain as
     stated in the original note.

HOLDER

By Barbara Green                         Date: 5/3/03
   --------------------------------

/s/    ??
-----------------------------------      Date: 5/3/03
Witness

<PAGE>
# 1992

# 1993

# 1994

# 1995

# 1996

# 1997

# 1998

# 1999

# 2000

# 2001

# 2002

# 2003

# 2004

# 2005

# 2006

# 2007

# 2008

# 2009

# 2010

# 2011

# 2012

# 2013

# 2014

# 2015

# 2016

# 2017

# 2018

# 2019

# 2020
[No. 54629-5-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### King County, *Respondent,*v. Richard Azpitarte, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kang County, No. 03-2-31896-5, Ronald Kessler, J., entered June 25, 2004. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 77.B

### PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                               (LOGO)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WHITBURN, LLC, ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-3384 ) DEUTSCHE BANK, NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR ASSET- ) BACKED PASS-THROUGH ) CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-W3; ) ROBERT W. KENKEL A/K/A ROBERT ) KENKEL; CANTERBURY LAKES ) HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC; ) GTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ) ) Appellees. ) )

Opinion filed October 9, 2015.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Perry A. Little, Senior Judge.

Heather A. DeGrave of Walters Levine Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Jack S. Kallus and Nicole R. Topper of Blank Rome, LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, for Appellees Deutsche Bank.

No appearance for remaining appellees.

PER CURIAM.- 2 - To the extent the final judgment on appeal incorporates the tr ial court's

oral ruling denying appellant's motion to substitute, it is aff irmed without necessity of

comment. In all other respects, this appeal is dismissed. See Market Tampa

Investments, LLC v. Stobaugh, No. 14-5126, 2015 WL 5131679, at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA

Sept. 2, 2015) (dismissing appeal from a final judgment of fore closure where appellant's

motion to substitute or intervene was denied in the trial court and affirmed on appeal).

ALTENBERND, WALLACE, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  214
<PP&E>                                         27,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                  9,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,566
<BONDS>                                        15,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,333
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,805
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                1,377
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (108)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
[No. 55569-3-I.

Division One.

December 5, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joseph Riley Wilson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 04-1-09583-9, Douglass A. North, J., entered December 13, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.