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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2833 

To require a minimum loss ratio for 90 percent for health insurance coverage 

offered through an insurance exchange. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. TIERNEY, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require a minimum loss ratio for 90 percent for health 

insurance coverage offered through an insurance exchange. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT OF MINIMUM LOSS RATIO OF 90 

4 PERCENT FOR A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN 

5 TO BE OFFERED THROUGH AN INSURANCE 

6 EXCHANGE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—No health insurance coverage may 

8 be offered through a health insurance exchange (as de9 fined in subsection (b)) unless the coverage is dem10 onstrated to have a medical loss ratio (as defined by the 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2833 IH

1 Secretary of Health and Human Services) of at least 90 

2 percent. 

3 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

4 (1) The term ‘‘health insurance exchange’’ 

5 means a mechanism established or recognized under 

6 Federal law, whether operated at a national, re7 gional, or State level, that provides a coordinated, 

8 centralized mechanism for offering for purchase to 

9 individuals (and others) of health insurance coverage 

10 from more than one health insurance issuer. 

11 (2) The terms ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ and 

12 ‘‘health insurance issuer’’ have the meanings given 

13 such terms in section 2791 of the Public Health 

14 Service Act. 

15 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

16 health insurance coverage offered on or after January 1, 

17 2010. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF ROSETTA STONE INC.
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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the calendar year ended December 31, 2010
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen M. Swad, Chief Financial Officer of Rosetta Stone Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that:



Date: March 14, 2011

/s/ STEPHEN M. SWAD Stephen M. Swad


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
           HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2006-HSA2 (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John JACQUES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-2888.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted June 1, 2011.*

Decided June 2, 2011.

Paul W. Connell, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge and JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

After pleading guilty to one count of possessing child pornography, *see*18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), John Jacques moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied his motion and then sentenced him to 78 months’ imprisonment. In a prior appeal, we denied his appointed lawyer’s motion to withdraw under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), *see United States v. Jacques,*No. 09-1743 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2010), and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing on two special conditions of supervised release. *See United States v. Jacques,*No. 09-1743 (7th Cir. May 14, 2010). The district court modified those conditions and amended the judgment.

Jacques appeals, but targets only the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. His argument is difficult to discern, but appears to contend that the court erred in accepting his plea as knowing and voluntary. He maintains that his *642admissions at the Rule 11 hearing should not have been accorded a “presumption of verity” because he did not testify under oath.

Jacques’s challenge goes beyond the scope of our remand order. He may not use the occasion of a remand to raise an issue in this second appeal that he could easily have raised in his first. *See United States v. Swanson,*483 F.3d 509, 515 (7th Cir.2007). In any event the district court conducted a careful Rule 11 colloquy, which ensured that the admissions he made were knowing and voluntary. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 975 (7th Cir.2002).

Jacques also faults his attorney for not informing him of rights under the Speedy Trial Act and of certain unspecified defenses to the indictment. Because the trial record on these points is undeveloped, any claim of ineffective assistance would best be brought in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Massaro v. United States,*538 U.S. 500, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003); *United States v. Harris,*394 F.3d 543, 557-58 (7th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Dina Velasquez Pereira v. Leonel Antonio Lopez Bustillo

Appellate case number: 01-16-00136-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-19994-7

Trial court: 247th District Court of Harris County

On November 10, 2016, we abated this appeal and remanded the case to permit the 

trial court to render a final judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2. On January 4, 2017, the 

district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record that contains the trial court’s “Final 

Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship,” signed on December 22, 2016. 

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually 

Date: February 2, 2017
1

 The Honorable Gregory W. Carman, Chief Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation. 

2

 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Court Western District of

Arkansas.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-4068

_____________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the 

v. * Western District of Arkansas

 *

Lucio Sanchez Estrada, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

 ______________ 

Submitted: April 11, 2000

 Filed: April 26, 2000

______________

Before BOWMAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, CARMAN, Judge1.

______________

PER CURIAM.

Lucio S. Estrada (Estrada) appeals from the District Court’s2 denial of
-2-

Estrada’s motion to suppress evidence allegedly seized from his vehicle in violation

of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Having reserved his

right to appeal by accepting a conditional guilty plea for possession with intent to

distribute heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994), Estrada argues on appeal that

the stop of his vehicle and his subsequent detention by law enforcement officials

constitute illegal seizures as such action was taken without reasonable suspicion or

probable cause. 

After hearing testimony from a law enforcement official regarding Estrada’s

stop and detention, the District Court found sufficient facts existed to support the

conclusion that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain

Estrada. Accordingly, the District Court denied Estrada’s motion to suppress

evidence. 

Having considered the record and the parties’ submissions and finding no

error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law of the District Court, we conclude

the District Court correctly denied Estrada’s motion to suppress. Because an

extended opinion by this Court would add nothing of substance to the jurisprudence

of this Circuit, we affirm the District Court without further opinion.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 1 8 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk August 1 8 , 2021

16 3 161 ( 2 1 )

THOMAS WILKOS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 163161

v COA: 356290

Oakland CC: 2020

- 182942

- NF

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and

ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellants

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appell ee to extend the time for

filing h is answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED

. The answer

submitted on July 23 , 2021 , is accepted as timely filed

.
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 Labor Relations Board

# AGENCY:

National Labor Relations Board.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

      ( print page 47253)    Authority:5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Labor Relations Board published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 2, 2017 identifying the individuals who have been appointed to serve as members of performance review boards. The document contained incorrect dates in the Summary.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Shinners, Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street SE., Washington, DC 20570, (202) 273-3737 (this is not a toll-free number), 1-866-315-6572 (TTY/TDD).

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of October 2, 2017, in FR Doc. 82-45905 (Vol. 82, No. 189), on page 45905, in the second column, correct the dates in the                         **SUMMARY**                         to read “October 1, 2016 and ending September 30, 2017.”                    

Dated: October 5, 2017.

Roxanne Rothschild,

Deputy Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-21858 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance
Sheet at September 30, 1996 and the Statement of Income for the Year Ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              21
<SECURITIES>                                       148
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,540
<ALLOWANCES>                                       196
<INVENTORY>                                      6,849      
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,785   
<PP&E>                                           6,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,192 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,175
<BONDS>                                          9,951
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,026
<SALES>                                        176,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,145
<CGS>                                          155,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                       968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,336
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Lisa DiFrancesco et al., Respondents, v County of Niagara et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 280]

Appeals from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Matthew J. Murphy, III, A.J.), entered February 28, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
#### Bernard HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-1245.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

July 31, 2013.

Julius L. Loeser, Attorney, James R. Thompson, Jr., Attorney, Thomas G. Weber, Attorney, Sean G. Wieber (argued), Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Gary Bell, Attorney, David E. Hollar (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Respondenh-Appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER, KANNE, ROVNER, WOOD, WILLIAMS, SYKES, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.*

*

 Circuit Judge Flaum took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

The petition to rehear this case (decided February 7, 2013, in an opinion reported at 706 F.3d 820) en banc is denied. Judges Rovner, Wood, Williams, and Hamilton voted to grant rehearing en banc.

See also the supplemental panel opinion, issued today, which denies panel rehearing, together with a dissenting opinion by Judge Rovner.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,

with whom WOOD, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges,

join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc for the same reasons set forth in my dissent from the denial of rehearing by the panel. I hereby incorporate by reference that dissent as a statement of the reasons why I believe the court should rehear this case en banc.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Larry Roebuck, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 23, 2014, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of forcible touching, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered June 23, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instrument was not jurisdictionally defective. It charged all the elements of forcible touching (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 130.52). The lack of consent element of the offense (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 130.05[2][c]) was satisfied by allegations that defendant pushed his groin up against a woman's buttocks on a subway car and repeatedly rubbed against her, and that the victim "turn[ed] around and look[ed] at the defendant, [then] move[d] her bag such that it was placed in between her buttocks and the defendant's groin area." At the pleading stage, these allegations support the inference that the victim did not acquiesce to defendant's actions (<a href="../2015/2015_08606.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Hatton, </i>26 NY3d 364</a>, 370 [2015]; <a href="../2017/2017_51267.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Nobles</i>, 57 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51267[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; <a href="../2010/2010_50022.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v White</i>, 26 Misc 3d 129</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50022[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2010]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: November 13, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert J. Scott, certify that:

 
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viva International, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.         The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

 (a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

 (b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

 (c)       Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.         The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

 (a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

 (b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
| Dated:  June 19, 2006 | By:  /s/ Robert J. Scott |
|-----------------------|--------------------------|

Robert J. Scott, Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32


                           INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Investment Associates, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, David Ward,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Robert
Hemmerling, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 operations
          of the Company.




Dated February 12, 2004           /s/ David Ward
                                  -------------------------------------
                                  David Ward,
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer


                                  /s/ Robert Hemmerling
                                  -----------------------
                                  Robert Hemmerling,
                                  Chief Financial Officer