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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4245 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to reimburse eligible veterans who are entitled to Medicare benefits for Medicare deductibles and other expenses that are owed by the 

veterans for emergency medical treatment provided in non-Department 

of Veterans Affairs facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2012 

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse eligible veterans 

who are entitled to Medicare benefits for Medicare 

deductibles and other expenses that are owed by the 

veterans for emergency medical treatment provided in 

non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Co-Pay Fair5 ness Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4245 IH

1 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF VET2 ERANS AFFAIRS OF MEDICARE DEDUCTIBLES 

3 AND OTHER EXPENSES OWED BY ELIGIBLE 

4 VETERANS FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL 

5 TREATMENT PROVIDED IN NON-DEPART6 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1725(c)(4)(D) is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the Sec11 retary’’; and 

12 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

13 clause: 

14 ‘‘(ii) In the case of a veteran who is entitled to bene15 fits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

16 or enrolled under part B of such title, the Secretary shall 

17 reimburse such veteran under this section, with respect 

18 to items and services furnished to such veteran as part 

19 of emergency treatment, for— 

20 ‘‘(I) the amount by which— 

21 ‘‘(aa) the amount otherwise payable under 

22 such part A for such items and services, is re23 duced by 

24 ‘‘(bb) the deductible under section 1813 of 

25 such Act or by any copayment or coinsurance 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4245 IH

1 applied under such part with respect to such 

2 items and services; and 

3 ‘‘(II) the amount by which— 

4 ‘‘(aa) the total amount of expenses in5 curred by the veteran during the year involved 

6 which would constitute expenses for which bene7 fits payable under section 1833(a) of such Act 

8 are determinable, is reduced by 

9 ‘‘(bb) the deductible under section 1833(b) 

10 of such Act or by any copayment or coinsurance 

11 applied under part B of such title with respect 

12 to such items and services.’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to emergency med15 ical treatment furnished on or after the date of the enact16 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD Criminal District Attorney Bexar County, Texas

August 4 , 2015

Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

RE: John Christopher Dominguez v. The State of Texas

Cause No. 04-13 -0 0 789- CR

Dear Mr. Acosta:

The State has received a copy of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the Appellant in this matter. The State waives its right to respond to the Petition for Discretionary Review. However, if the Court grants the Petition, the State will file a brief on the merits.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Laura Durbin LAURA DURBIN Assistant Criminal District Attorney Bexar County, Texas Paul Elizondo Tower 101 W. Nueva (210) 335-2411 S.B.N. 24068556

cc: Patrick B. Montgomery Attorney at Law 111 Soledad San Antonio, Texas 78205

Attorney for the State PD-0522-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/3/2015 3:30:43 PM Accepted 8/3/2015 3:41:05 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RYAN FREDELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-34

[March 9, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

312020CF000575A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Cynthia L. Anderson, 

Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm on all arguments which the defendant has raised in his 

appeal from his sentence of thirty-six months in prison, with credit for 

234 days’ time served. Our affirmance is without prejudice to the 

defendant’s ability to file a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 

motion directed to defense counsel’s lack of objection to judicial factfinding on the issue of whether severe victim injury points should have 

been included in determining the range of the defendant’s sentence. We 

make no statement on whether such a motion would have merit.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4129 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4129

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2012

 Mr. Langevin (for himself and Mr. Cicilline) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds as follows:
            (1) Rhode Island fishermen participate in fisheries managed 
        by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) and the 
        Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC).
            (2) Rhode Island currently has voting membership on the 
        NEFMC under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
        Management Act but does not have voting membership on the 
        MAFMC.
            (3) Rhode Island lands more MAFMC-managed stocks than any 
        other MAFMC member except the State of New Jersey.
            (4) A higher percentage of Rhode Island's commercial 
        landings (by weight or value) traditionally have come from 
        species that are managed by the MAFMC as compared to species 
        managed by NEFMC.
            (5) MAFMC has found that Rhode Island's circumstance 
        parallels that of Florida and North Carolina, which each have 
        voting membership on two different fishery management councils.

SEC. 3. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT 
              COUNCIL.

    Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``States of'';
            (2) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``except North 
        Carolina,'';
            (3) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``23''; and
            (4) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4299 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family 

member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mr. MCNERNEY (for himself and Mr. RUNYAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals residing 

temporarily in housing owned by a family member. 

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 ‘‘Quality Housing for 

5 Veterans Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4299 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE SPECIALLY 

3 ADAPTED HOUSING ASSISTANCE TO INDIVID4 UALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING 

5 OWNED BY A FAMILY MEMBER. 

6 Section 2102A of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2012’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TYLER MOOK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1422

[ March 25, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence M. Mirman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014CF001493A.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

TAYLOR, J.

Tyler Mook appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for 

postconviction relief. We reverse only as to the first claim in his motion 

(Ground One).

Mook was charged with attempted first-degree murder for throwing his

girlfriend off his boat, jumping into the water after her, and pushing her 

underwater at least twice. He was found guilty of attempted second-degree 

murder as a lesser included offense and sentenced to twelve years in 

prison. On direct appeal, we affirmed the conviction but reversed an award 

of costs to the State for bringing witnesses from Tennessee to testify at 

sentencing. Mook v. State, 231 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

In Ground One of his Rule 3.850 motion, Mook claimed that his defense 

counsel was ineffective for misadvising him to reject a plea offer of five 

years in prison. He alleged that counsel told him the State could prove 

only a misdemeanor (battery or culpable negligence) because it could not 

prove premeditation or intent to kill. Mook alleged that counsel’s advice 
2

to reject the plea was unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of 

the case because he failed to properly evaluate the likelihood of a 

conviction for attempted second-degree murder, which does not require 

proof of premeditation or intent to kill. See Brice v. State, 162 So. 3d 81, 

82–83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversing the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 

motion and remanding for an evidentiary hearing on a claim that counsel’s 

advice to reject a plea offer was unreasonable because he failed to properly 

evaluate the strength of the State’s case and explain the likelihood of a 

conviction). Mook also alleged a reasonable probability that, but for 

counsel’s advice, he would have accepted the plea and it would have been 

entered without the State withdrawing it or the judge refusing to accept it. 

See Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419, 430 (Fla. 2013).

Mook’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was sufficiently pled, 

and the trial court erred by finding without an evidentiary hearing that 

counsel’s advice to reject the plea offer was a reasonable strategic decision. 

See, e.g., Washington v. State, 187 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). We 

therefore reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for an 

evidentiary hearing. We affirm the summary denial of Mook’s other 

grounds for relief without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
SPUD_YEAR NUM_FRAC_WELLS_HORIZ_DIR

1948 1

1949 4

1951 3

1952 4

1953 2

1954 6

1955 7

1956 7

1957 15

1958 14

1959 16

1960 9

1961 14

1962 19

1963 12

1964 22

1965 21

1966 4

1967 13

1968 11

1969 13

1970 18

1971 10

1972 7

1973 5

1974 7

1975 12

1976 38

1977 29

1978 24

1979 31

1980 52

1981 46

1982 43

1983 84

1984 87

1985 118

1986 150

1987 171

1988 233

1989 290

1990 442

1991 311

1992 295

1993 447

1994 515
1995 607

1996 757

1997 700

1998 534

1999 555

2000 919

2001 1,645

2002 1,342

2003 2,237

2004 3,423

2005 4,740

2006 6,390

2007 8,727

2008 11,734

2009 7,883

2010 9,047
July 12, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOUGLAS LEE MCGOWAN, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00557-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### §300c–13. Continuing activities related to stillbirth, sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexplained death in childhood

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall continue activities related to still birth, sudden unexpected infant death, and sudden unexplained death in childhood, including, as appropriate—

(1) collecting information, such as socio-demographic, death scene investigation, clinical history, and autopsy information, on stillbirth, sudden unexpected infant death, and sudden unexplained death in childhood through the utilization of existing surveillance systems and collaborating with States to improve the quality, consistency, and collection of such data;

(2) disseminating information to educate the public, health care providers, and other stakeholders on stillbirth, sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexplained death in childhood; and

(3) collaborating with the Attorney General, State and local departments of health, and other experts, as appropriate, to provide consistent information for medical examiners and coroners, law enforcement personnel, and health care providers related to death scene investigations and autopsies for sudden unexpected infant death and sudden unexplained death in childhood, in order to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected at such death scenes and to promote consistent reporting on the cause of death after autopsy to inform prevention, intervention, and other activities.

#### (b) Report to Congress

Not later than 2 years after December 18, 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report that includes a description of any activities that are being carried out by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, related to stillbirth, sudden unexpected infant death, and sudden unexplained death in childhood, including those activities identified under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 113–236, §2, Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2831.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Sudden Unexpected Death Data Enhancement and Awareness Act, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
### §§290bb–8, 290bb–9. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–255, div. B, title IX, §9017, Dec. 13, 2016, 130 Stat. 1248

Section 290bb–8, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §514A, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXI, §3104(a), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1172, related to early intervention services for children and adolescents.

Section 290bb–9, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §514, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXVI, §3632, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1236, related to methamphetamine and amphetamine treatment initiative. Another section 514 of act July 1, 1944, is classified to section 290bb–7 of this title.
### §§2929 to 2929c. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2929, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §551, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2306; amended Pub. L. 95–568, §§11(a), (b), 17(a)(22), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2433, 2441, set forth provisions respecting financial assistance for Follow Through programs.

Section 2929a, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §552, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2307; amended Pub. L. 95–568, §§11(c), 17(a)(23), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2433, 2441, related to authorization of appropriations.

Section 2929b, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §553, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(3), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2434, related to research, demonstration, and pilot projects.

A prior section 2929b, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §553, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2307, related to research, demonstration, and pilot projects, and was repealed by Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(1), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2433.

Section 2929b–1, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §554, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(3), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2434, related to announcement of research, demonstration, and pilot project programs.

A prior section 554 of Pub. L. 88–452 was redesignated 557, and is classified to section 2929c of this title.

Section 2929b–2, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §555, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(3), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2434, set forth provisions respecting evaluation of programs.

Section 2929b–3, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §556, as added Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(3), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2435, related to technical assistance and training.

Section 2929c, Pub. L. 88–452, title V, §557, formerly §554, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §8(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2308; renumbered §557, Pub. L. 95–568, §11(d)(2), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2433, set forth special conditions for recipients of financial assistance.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
Editorial Note on Part 248
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 248 appear at 74 FR 40431, Aug. 11, 2009.

§ 248.101 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 624 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, *et seq.* (“FCRA”). Section 624, which was added to the FCRA by section 214 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Public Law 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952 (2003) (“FACT Act” or “Act”), regulates the use of consumer information received from an affiliate to make marketing solicitations.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart applies to any broker or dealer other than a notice-registered broker or dealer, to any investment company, and to any investment adviser or transfer agent registered with the Commission. These entities are referred to in this subpart as “you.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Mannis, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Smith, Merrell and Greenbaum, JJ.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [License No. 09/79-0455] 

Notice is hereby given that Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P., 2200 Sand Hill Road, Suite 160, Menlo Park, CA 94025, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P. proposes to provide equity/debt security financing to MetaLINCS Corporation. The financing is contemplated for operating expenses and for general corporate purposes. 

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Jerry Casilli, Richard Ling and Greg Eaton, all Associates of Rembrandt Venture Partners II, L.P., own more than ten percent of MetaLINCS Corporation. 

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. 

Dated: 

Jaime Guzman-Fournier,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment. 

[FR Doc. 04-27477 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Annie Curran, Appellee, v. Patrick B. Curran, Appellant.

Gen. No. 20,328.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Denis E. Suelivan, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 25, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Bill for divorce by Annie Curran against Patrick B. Curran for desertion and extreme and repeated cruelty.

The evidence showed, and it was admitted, that the husband left complainant on September 27, 1910, and never supported her nor offered to support her thereafter. The bill was filed May 23, 1913. The evidence as to the cause of his leaving was conflicting.

From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals.

Patrick B. Curran and C. S. O’Meara, for appellant.

Kelley, Fardy *&*Griffin, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Brown

delivered the opinion of the court.

*161Abstract of the Decision.

Divorce, & *48*—when decree on ground of desertion sustained.*Where the evidence on a bill for divorce by a wife against a husband on the ground of desertion shows that the husband left her more than two years before the date of the filing of bill and never supported nor offered to support her thereafter, and the evidence as to the cause of his leaving is conflicting, a decree In favor of the complainant will not be disturbed on appeal.