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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 232 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 232

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit direct 
payment to pharmacies for certain compounded drugs that are prepared by 
the pharmacies for a specific beneficiary for use through an implanted 
                             infusion pump.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2013

  Mr. Harper 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 permit direct 
payment to pharmacies for certain compounded drugs that are prepared by 
the pharmacies for a specific beneficiary for use through an implanted 
                             infusion pump.

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

SECTION 1. MEDICARE DIRECT PAYMENT TO PHARMACIES FOR CERTAIN COMPOUNDED 
              DRUGS THAT ARE PREPARED BY THE PHARMACIES FOR A SPECIFIC 
              BENEFICIARY FOR USE THROUGH AN IMPLANTED INFUSION PUMP.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1842(b)(6) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(H)''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``, and (I) in the case of covered compounded drugs 
        that are prepared by a pharmacy for a specific individual, are 
        dispensed, directly or indirectly, to the individual, are 
        necessary for the effective use of, or therapeutic benefit 
        from, an implanted infusion pump (regardless of who refills the 
        pump), and are billed directly by the pharmacy, payment shall 
        be made to the pharmacy''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to drugs dispensed on or after January 1, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
§ 301.55-8 Attachment and disposition of certificates and limited permits. ( a ) A certificate or limited permit required for the interstate movement of a regulated article must, at all times during the interstate movement, be: ( 1 ) Attached to the outside of the container containing the regulated article; or
( 2 ) Attached to the regulated article itself if not in a container; or
( 3 ) Attached to the consignee's copy of the accompanying waybill. If the certificate or limited permit is attached to the consignee's copy of the waybill, the regulated article must be sufficiently described on the certificate or limited permit and on the waybill to identify the regulated article.
( b ) The certificate or limited permit for the interstate movement of a regulated article must be furnished by the carrier or the carrier's representative to the consignee listed on the certificate or limited permit upon arrival at the location provided on the certificate or limited permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0337)
February 24, 2015

Mr. Charles H. Leonard

Chief Executive Officer

Network Media Services, LLC.

2646 Weatherby Hills Drive SE

Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Dear Mr. Leonard:

This is in response to your August 3, 2014, letter sent to the docket (No. FAA-2014-0598) 

petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Network Media Services,

LLC DBA Applied Drone Technologies for an exemption from part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 

61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Applied 

Drone Technologies to commercially operate its fleet of small unmanned aircraft in motion 

picture or television operations, to conduct its own research and to develop economic 

platforms for law enforcement, first responders, and search and rescue.

By email dated December 5, 2014, which posted to the docket on December 9, the FAA sent

you a request for additional information asking you to:

1. Please provide all UAS makes and models, serial numbers, technical specifications, i.e., 

maximum takeoff weight, payload weight, size, and max speed, operating limitations, if any 

to be used under this exemption, referenced on page eight.

2. Please provide additional information concerning Network Media’s maintenance program, 

i.e., inspections and correction of discrepancies, referenced on page eight of the exemption 

request.

3. If complete, please provide the operations manual referenced on page eight of the 

petitioner’s exemption request.
2

To date, the FAA has not received the required information to continue processing your 

petition. Because your petition lacks sufficient information to proceed, the FAA has closed 

your exemption request. Should you wish to provide the additional information, please 

resubmit your petition for exemption to the public docket.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda D. Courtney

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7815

KENNETH E. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden; HENRY D. MCMASTER,

South Carolina Attorney General,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-03-2449-0-23)

Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 12, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth E. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth E. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

etc.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:02cv389-RH/WCS

CAPITAL GROUP HEALTH SERVICES

OF FLORIDA, INC., etc., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING GOVERNMENT TO FILE NOTICE

REGARDING CONSENT VEL NON TO DISMISSAL

This is a qui tam action. By notice filed June 14, 2004 (document 12), the

government elected not to intervene.

By order entered June 7, 2005, plaintiff’s claims against defendants Capital

Group Health Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Capital Health Plan (“CHP”) and

Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc. (“TMH”) were dismissed for failure to state

a claim on which relief could be granted. I did not direct the entry of judgment

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and judgment therefore was not

entered. 

Case 4:02-cv-00389-RH-WCS Document 107 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:02cv389-RH/WCS

By motion to dismiss filed July 28, 2005, relator Dominica Brodsky seeks

dismissal of the only remaining claims, those against defendants Dr. Faisal

Munasifi and Psych. Management Services, Inc., with prejudice. 

A qui tam action may be dismissed by the relator only with the consent of

the court and the government. See 31 U.S.C. §3730(b)(1). If the government

consents, it must state its reasons. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The government shall file a notice by August 25, 2005, stating whether it

does or does not consent to entry of a judgment dismissing all claims in this action

with prejudice, and, if the government consents, stating its reasons.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00389-RH-WCS Document 107 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 758 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 758 Filed 03/25/13 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 758 Filed 03/25/13 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 758 Filed 03/25/13 Page 4 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

John Ley

Clerk of Court 

March 25, 2013

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Darrell Green

USP Atlanta - Inmate Legal Mail 

PO BOX 150160

ATLANTA, GA 30315

Appeal Number: 12-15910-A ; 12-16412 -A

Case Style: USA v. Darrell Green

District Court Docket No: 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT-1

On April 1, 2013, this Court will begin MANDATORY electronic filing. All counsel are 

required to file documents electronically in appeals pending on April 1, 2013, and in appeals 

docketed in this Court on or after that date, unless exempted for good cause.

The following action has been taken in the referenced case:

The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1(b) you are hereby notified that upon expiration of 

fourteen (14) days from this date, this appeal will be dismissed by the clerk without further 

notice unless you pay to the DISTRICT COURT clerk the $450x2 docket and $5x2 filing fees 

(total of $455x2), with notice to this office.

Sincerely,

JOHN LEY, Clerk of Court

Reply to: Denise E. O'Guin, A

Phone #: (404) 335-6188

MOT-2 Notice of Court Action

Case 3:96-cr-00074-RV-EMT Document 758 Filed 03/25/13 Page 5 of 5
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.22 Performance criteria. The Summer EBT agency must monitor and document data on each of the following performance criteria: ( a ) Performance Criteria 1—Percentage of children eligible for Summer EBT benefits who participated by using their benefits at least once.
( b ) Performance Criteria 2—Percentage of Summer EBT benefits that are issued to children not eligible for Summer EBT.
( c ) Performance Criteria 3—Percentage of children issued benefits who receive their first issuance before the start of the summer operational period.
( d ) Performance Criteria 4—Percentage of eligible children who can be identified through streamlined certification who are enrolled without further application.
#### § 29.3051 Raw.

Freshly harvested tobacco or tobacco as it appears between the time of harvesting and the beginning of the curing process.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, and at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
§ 305.2 Approved treatments. ( a ) Certain commodities or articles require treatment, or are subject to treatment, prior to interstate movement within the United States or importation or entry into the United States. Treatment is required as indicated in parts 301, 318, and 319 of this chapter, on a permit, or by an inspector.
( b ) Treatments may only be administered in accordance with the requirements of this part and in accordance with treatment schedules approved by the Administrator as effective at neutralizing quarantine pests. The treatment schedules found in the PPQ Treatment Manual have been approved by the Administrator. Treatment schedules may be added to the PPQ Treatment Manual in accordance with § 305.3. Treatment schedules may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) Persons who wish to have a treatment schedule approved by the Administrator as effective at neutralizing a quarantine pest or pests may apply for approval by submitting the treatment schedule, along with any supporting information and data, to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27606-5202. Upon receipt of such an application, the Administrator will review the schedule and the supporting information and data and respond with approval or denial of the treatment schedule. If the Administrator determines the treatment schedule to be of potential general use, the Administrator may add the new treatment schedule to the PPQ Treatment Manual or revise an existing schedule, as appropriate, in accordance with § 305.3.
( d ) APHIS is not responsible for losses or damages incurred during treatment and recommends that a sample be treated first before deciding whether to treat the entire shipment.
[75 FR 4241, Jan. 26, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 60360, Sept. 29, 2011]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

(Tallahassee Division)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

) Civil Action No. 4:01cv238SPM

 )

COASTAL LUMBER COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

ORDER

This Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Consent Decree (doc.

117), hereby ORDERS:

1. The Court’s entry of the Consent Decree (doc. 114) on June 6, 2006 is

hereby VACATED.

2. As the public comment period has now closed, without any comments

being received by the United States, the Court finds that the Consent Decree is fair,

reasonable, and in the public interest, and affixes its signature approving the Consent

Decree.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2006. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-00238-SPM-AK Document 118 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133902 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133902 

 COA: 267043 

Wayne CC: 05-007110-01

NIGEL LEE WHITTAKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
#### § 29.3026 General quality.

The quality of tobacco considered in relation to the type as a whole. General quality is distinguished from the restricted use of the term “quality” within a group.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### Central Republic Trust Company, appellee, v. Michigan-Chestnut Building Corporation et al., defendants. Edward E. Cohn et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 37,673.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Aaron Soble, William Vihon, Louis Wilson and Irving Goodman, for appellants. Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Cole, for appellee Central Republic Trust Co. Sonnenschein, Berkson, Lautmann, Levinson & Morse, for Chicago Title & Trust Co. Cassels, Potter & Bentley, for Michigan-Chestnut Bldg. Corp.; James W. Hyde, Frank W. McCulloch and Isaac E. Ferguson, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: May 11, 2006



| |  |                                                                   
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ RANDOLPH GRESS                                                
| |  | Randolph Gress                                                    
| |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Naschak, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from *545an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 27, 1967, which denied the application without a.hearing. Upon this appeal we have also reviewed an order of the same court, dated February 8, 1967, which granted reargument, but adhered to the original decision. Appeal from order dated January 27, 1967 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order on reargument. Order dated February 8,1967 affirmed insofar as it adhered to the original decision. No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:03 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwal tner@nrdc.org;

kwinder @ml eainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Dry

‐ Type LCC and NIA Results

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the draft LCC and NIA results for dr y

‐ type me diu m

‐ voltage

transformers (design lines 9

‐ 13B) attached.

Thanks you,

‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 647

‐ 832

‐ 4021
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.102 Application of policies. ( a ) *General.* If a debt is eligible for settlement, the debt settlement authorities of the government should be explained and the privileges thereof extended to the debtor. All debtors are entitled to impartial treatment and uniform consideration under this subpart. Accordingly, Rural Development personnel charged with any responsibility in connection with debt settlement will adhere strictly to the authorizations, requirements, and limitations in this subpart.
( b ) *For hospitals and health care facilities only.* Loan servicing and debt restructuring options according to § 1956.143 of this subpart must be exhausted before the other settlement authorities of this subpart are applicable.
[53 FR 13100, Apr. 21, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 46160, Sept. 7, 1994]
#### § 1782.10 Audit requirements.

Audits for loans will be required in accordance with § 1780.47 of this chapter. If the borrower becomes delinquent or is experiencing problems, the servicing official will require an audit or other documentation deemed necessary to resolve the delinquency. The provisions of subpart F of 2 CFR part 200, as adopted by USDA through 2 CFR part 400, address audit requirements for recipients of Federal assistance.

[79 FR 76006, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 202.43 Proceedings under section 302(a) to show cause why seed or screenings should be admitted into the United States.

When seed or screenings have been refused admission into the United States under the Act or the joint regulations promulgated thereunder, the owner or consignee of such seed or screenings may submit a request to the Director for a hearing in which he may show cause, if any he have, why such seed or screenings should be admitted. Request for such hearing shall be embodied in a writing signed by the owner or consignee or by his attorney or agent. The Director shall thereupon fix, and notify the owner or consignee of, the time when and place at which the hearing will be held. The hearing shall be conducted in an orderly and informal manner by the Director or by a presiding officer duly designated by him, and it shall be governed by such rules of procedure as the presiding officer shall announce at the opening of the hearing. The determination as to whether the seed or screenings may be admitted into the United States shall be made by the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, within a reasonable time after the close of the hearing, and the owner or consignee of the seed or screenings who requested the hearing and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be duly notified as to such determination.