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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3055 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3055

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue Medicaid 
    spousal impoverishment protections for spouses of beneficiaries 
  receiving home and community based services under a current waiver 
  parallel to protections afforded spouses of nursing home residents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2009

    Mr. Engel (for himself and Mr. King of New York) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue Medicaid 
    spousal impoverishment protections for spouses of beneficiaries 
  receiving home and community based services under a current waiver 
  parallel to protections afforded spouses of nursing home residents.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF MEDICAID SPOUSAL IMPOVERISHMENT PROTECTIONS 
              FOR CERTAIN SPOUSES OF BENEFICIARIES RECEIVING HOME AND 
              COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES UNDER A CURRENT WAIVER PARALLEL 
              TO PROTECTIONS AFFORDED SPOUSES OF NURSING HOME 
              RESIDENTS.

    Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396(c)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(10) In the case of a State waiver which was effective under this 
subsection as of December 31, 2008, and which provided as of such date 
and in connection with such waiver for income and resource protections 
for spouses of individuals receiving home and community based services 
pursuant to this subsection equivalent to such protections authorized 
for spouses of institutionalized individuals under section 1924, the 
Secretary shall authorize the continuation of such income and resource 
protections for the duration of such waiver (including any extensions 
thereof).''.
                                 <all>
```
**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

Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A ofNitroMed, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)          the Reportfully complies with 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.

Dated: May 22, 2007 
|        | /s/ Kenneth M. Bate                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Kenneth M. Bate                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 24

- 00192

- CV

IN RE EDWARDO MEZA

______________

O riginal Proceeding

From the 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 44628CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Relator Edwardo Meza on June 24,

2024 is denied.

S TEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

(Chief J ustice Gray dissents)

P etit i on denied

Opinion delivered and filed June 27 , 2024

[OT06]
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman , 126 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2010-Ohio-4986.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . G OODMAN . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goodman ,

126 Ohio St.3d 1240, 2010-Ohio-4986.] Attorneys at law — Reciprocal disciplin e from the Supreme Court of New Mexico — Public reprimand — Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4). (No. 2010-1318 — Submitted September 13, 2010 — Decided September 20, 2010.)

O N C ERTIFIED O RDER of the Supreme Court of New Mexico, No. 31,936.

__________________ {¶ 1} This cause is pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio in accordance with the reciprocal disciplin e provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F). {¶ 2} On July 28, 2010, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed with this court a certified copy of an order of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico entered December 17, 2009, in In re Goodman , in case No. 31,936, publicly reprimanding respondent. The respondent did not provide written notification to the Clerk of this court within 30 days as required by Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(1). On August 4, 2010, this court ordered respondent to show cause why identical or comparable discipline should not be imposed in this state. Respondent did not respond to the show cause order. This cause was considered by the court and on consideration thereof, {¶ 3} It is ordered and adjudged by this court that pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(11)(F)(4), respondent, Jay Phillip G oodman, Attorney Registration No. 0036729, last known business a ddress in Sante Fe, Ne w Mexico, be publicly reprimanded. {¶ 4} It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that within 90 days of the date of this order, respondent sha ll reimburse any amounts that have beenS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 awarded against respondent by the Clients' Security Fund pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F). It is further ordered, sua sponte, by the court that if, after the date of this order, the Clients' Security F und awards any amount against respondent pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VIII(7)(F), responde nt shall reimburse that amount to the Clients' Security Fund within 90 days of the notice of such award. {¶ 5} It is further ordered, sua sponte, th at all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohi o, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings. All documents are subject to Rules 44 through 47 of the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, which govern access

to court records. {¶ 6} It is further ordered, sua sponte, th at service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order and all other orders in this case by certified mail to respondent’s last known address. {¶ 7} It is further ordered that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V( 8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

B ROWN , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

______________________
[No. 30126-5-III.

Division Three.

November 8, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Frank Patrick Mann, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 03-1-02000-2, Jerome J. Leveque, J., entered July 26, *2011.Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Brown, J.,

concurred in by Siddoway, A.C.J., and Sweeney, J.
**CERTIFICATION      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**

|   | 1. | The                Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,                2007, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the“Periodic                Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the                end of                the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations                of the                Company for the period covered by the Periodic                Report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                          |   |   |                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| /s/              Peter A.              Michel |   |   | /s/              David G. Vana                      |
| Peter A. MichelChief Executive Officer   |   |   | David G. VanaChief Financial                Officer |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul H. Burgette, Also Known as Paul Meigs, Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 362]

Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered June 13, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the first degree and assault in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first degree and assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of a pending indictment, and further waived his right to appeal. County Court agreed to sentence defendant, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 12 years to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. The sentence was in fact imposed, and defendant now appeals.

*1035Defendant first challenges the validity of his appeal waiver and, “[c]ontrary to the People’s assertion, defendant was not required to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction in order to preserve” that challenge *(People v Crump,*107 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1014 [2013]). County Court failed to meet its obligation to ensure that defendant understood that his appeal waiver encompassed a right “separate and distinct from those . . . automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *accord People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]). Moreover, while defense counsel indicated during the plea colloquy that he had discussed the written waiver with defendant, the record reveals no attempt by the court to confirm that defendant “grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” upon the record *(People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d at 267). We accordingly agree with defendant that his appeal waiver was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d at 267; *People v Bouton,*107 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1072 [2013]).

Defendant’s further argument that his negotiated sentence was harsh and excessive is thus properly before us; nevertheless, we reject it. The charges here stemmed from an incident wherein defendant, seeking to recover marihuana he believed the victim had stolen from him, entered the victim’s residence with three other individuals and savagely attacked him with a baseball bat. Given the vicious nature of the present offense, as well as defendant’s lengthy and violent criminal history, we perceive no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the sentence imposed *(see People v Girard,*111 AD3d 1153, 1153 [2013]; *People v Manley,*101 AD3d 1270, 1271 [2012]).

Peters, PJ., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 04/23/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-3305

 

D. C. Docket No. 91-11-CV-T-17B

RICHARD B. GOSSARD, JOYCE GOSSARD, 

BARNEY DEWEES, JOHN DALY, NURSEFINDERS 

OF SARASOTA, INC., NURSEFINDERS OF ST. 

PETERSBERG, INC., NURSEFINDERS OF 

MOBILE, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellants,

versus

ADIA SERVICES, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

 

(April 23, 1999)

Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

In this tortious interference action, appellants Richard Gossard, Joyce

Gossard, Barney Dewees, John Daly, Nursefinders of Sarasota, Inc., Nursefinders

of St. Petersburg, Inc., and Nursefinders of Mobile, Inc. (collectively “Gossard”)
2

appeal the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Adia

Services, Inc. (“Adia”), notwithstanding the jury verdict which resolved all the

factual issues in favor of Gossard. The district court’s order was based on two

findings: (1) that Adia did not “induce or otherwise cause” a breach of contract

under Florida law, see Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d

812, 814 (Fla.1994) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766 (1977) (defining

the tort of “intentional interference with a contract”)), and (2) that the jury’s

$2,488,000 compensatory damage award was based on an erroneous legal theory.

 The facts of this case are set out in Gossard v. Adia, 120 F.3d 1229 (11th

Cir. 1997). In that opinion, we concluded that the dispositive question of Florida

law was not dictated by the clear and controlling precedent of the Florida Supreme

Court. Accordingly, we certified the following question to the Florida Supreme

Court:

WHETHER FLORIDA LAW RECOGNIZES A CLAIM FOR

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE AGAINST A CORPORATION

WHICH PURCHASES AS A SUBSIDIARY A CORPORATION

WHICH HAS A PREEXISTING OBLIGATION NOT TO

COMPETE AGAINST ITS FRANCHISEE, PLAINTIFF HEREIN,

AND SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASES ANOTHER SUBSIDIARY

WHICH IS IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH THE

FRANCHISEE.

Gossard v. Adia, 120 F.3d 1229, 1231 (11th Cir. 1997).
3

The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the

affirmative. See Gossard v. Adia, (Fla.). Based on this opinion, we REVERSE the

district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and remand this case to the

district court for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Florida Supreme

Court.
#### In the Matter of Anthony DeVivo, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 239]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Facility personnel received an anonymous letter detailing a *1010planned prison escape, and a subsequent investigation led personnel to conclude that petitioner authored the letter, which petitioner denied. Petitioner thereafter was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the order of the facility and making false statements. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and a penalty was imposed. Petitioner’s administrative appeal proved unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination.

Of the various arguments raised by petitioner, only his substantial evidence claim warrants discussion. To be sure, both the correction officer who authored the misbehavior report and the Hearing Officer, the latter of whom was authorized to and did in fact make an independent assessment of the seized letter and petitioner’s handwriting samples *(see Matter of Hood v Goord,*36 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2007]; *Matter of Johnson v Coombe,*271 AD2d 780, 780-781 [2000]), concluded that petitioner wrote the letter outlining the escape, and petitioner acknowledged that certain similarities were present. However, the letter at issue was written in cursive, and all of petitioner’s handwriting samples were printed except for those portions bearing his signature. * Indeed, the Hearing Officer acknowledged that petitioner “do[es] not write in cursive.” In our view, the 10 letters contained in petitioner’s signature are insufficient in both number and distinct characteristics to permit a meaningful comparison between petitioner’s handwriting and the seized letter. Accordingly, we agree with petitioner that the determination of guilt is not supported by substantial evidence. In light of this conclusion, we need not reach the remaining arguments raised by petitioner. Were we to do so, we would find such contentions to be either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P, Carpinello, Rose, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, petition granted and the Commissioner of Correctional Services is directed to expunge all references to this matter from petitioner’s institutional record and restore any loss of good time.

*

 As the Hearing Officer stated, “For the record, basically all I have to use in comparison is a signature because everything else [is] printed.”
| (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 the operations of the      Company. |

| By:    | /s/      Anthony Shupin                       |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                  |  Anthony      Shupin                     |
|                  |  President,      Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |  April      13, 2009                     |

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32


                           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 Internet Pictures Corporation
(collectively, the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, Donald Strickland and Paul Farmer, the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operation of the
Company.


/s/ Donald Strickland
--------------------------------
Donald Strickland
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003


/s/ Paul Farmer
--------------------------------
Paul Farmer
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1



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 annual report on Form 20-F of Metallica Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the registrant.



Date: March 28, 2008



/s/ Richard J. Hall



Richard J. Hall

President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, 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 the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Norma Lizeth Lopez OYUELA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73724.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2010.*

Filed March 15, 2011.

Norma Lizeth Lopez Oyuela, Los Ange-les, CA, pro se.

Oil, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Norma Lizeth Lopez-Oyuela, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Lopez-Oyuela contends that the BIA erred in denying her applications for relief because she suffered past persecution, and she fears future persecution, due to her political opinions in support of a minority political party in Honduras. Lopez-Oyuela failed to raise her claim of persecution based on her political opinion before the BIA, and therefore she has failed to administratively exhaust the only claim that she raises before this court. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[No. 66104-3-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Yvette Connor, *Respondent,*and Arthur Bettati, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 07-3-06736-5, James A. Doerty, J., entered September 10, 2010. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Dwyer, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Spearman, J.