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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8089 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8089

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require certain 
       additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2024

 Mr. Mike Garcia of California (for himself and Mr. Peters) 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 require certain 
       additional provider screening under the Medicaid program.

    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 ``Medicare and Medicaid Fraud 
Prevention Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1396a(kk)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``The State'' and inserting:
                    ``(A) In general.--The State''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Additional provider screening.--Beginning 
                January 1, 2025, as part of the enrollment (or 
                revalidation of enrollment) of a provider or supplier 
                under this title, and not less frequently than 
                quarterly during the period that such provider or 
                supplier is so enrolled, the State conducts a check of 
                the Death Master File (as such term is defined in 
                section 203(d) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013) to 
                determine whether such provider or supplier is 
                deceased.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3390 Hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) metal/polymer cemented or uncemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A hip joint femoral (hemi-hip) metal/polymer cemented or uncemented prosthesis is a two-part device intended to be implanted to replace the head and neck of the femur. This generic type of device includes prostheses that have a femoral component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and a snap-fit acetabular component made of an alloy, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. This generic type of device may be fixed to the bone with bone cement (§ 888.3027) or implanted by impaction.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1480 Neurological endoscope. ( a ) *Identification.* A neurological endoscope is an instrument with a light source used to view the inside of the ventricles of the brain.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Reader’s Guide for Pr allethrin

CRM: Wilhelmena Livingston

EPA/O CSPP /OPP/ P RD

Reader’s Guide to Pr allethrin Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 20 1 1

- 100 9

Publication Date: June 2 0

, 20 1 2

EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the

Regist ration Review Pr allethrin Docket for Public Comments . The docket index groups

related documents. The first group contains the Federal Register and Docket

Organizational Documents, the second group contains the Environmental Risk

Assessment document , the third group con tains th e H uman H ealth Assessment , and the

fourth group contains use/usage information and a review of human incidents. The

Agency is providing the “Reader’s Guide” to allow the reader to more easily access and

navigate the various items con tained in the Pr allethrin docket.

Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents :

Docket Item 1. Federal Register Notice: Pr allethrin Registration Review

Docket Item 2. Reader’s Guide to the Pr allethrin Docket # EPA

- HQ

-

OPP

- 20 1 1

- 100 9

Docket Item 3. Pr allethrin Preliminary Work Plan Doc ument

June 8 , 2012)

Environmental Fate and Effects Documents for Registration Review

Docket Item 4. Registration Review

- Pr oblem Formulation for Environmental

Fate, Ecological Risk, Endange red Species, and Drinking Water

Assessments for Prallethrin

( April 17, 2012 )

This document provides an overview of what is currently known about the environmental

fate and ecological effects associated with prallethrin and its degradates, and outlines

uncertainties regarding attributes of the parent compound and its transformation

products.

Human Health Document for Registration Review

Docket Item 5

. Pr allethrin : Human Heath Assessment Scoping Document in

Support of Registration Review

( May 10

, 20 1 2 )This document evaluates the status of the human health assessments to determine the

scope of work necessary to support the registration review of the selective herbicide

P r allethri n

.

Human Incidents

Docket Item 6

. Prallethrin: Review of Human Incid ents

( February 14 , 201 2 )

This report represents poisoning incidents occurring in the United States for Prallethrin.

Use and Usage Information for Registration Review

Docket Item 7. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Prallethrin

(128722)

( December 28, 2011)

The purpose of this document is to convey usage information and a broad overview of the

pest management roles of pesticides that are beginning to undergo registration review.

Docket Item 8

. Pr allethrin (128722) Cal. DPR Usage Dat a

( January 17, 2012 )

This document provides publicly available data from the California Department of

Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) that outlines the pounds of Prallethrin used in California

over the three most recent years (2008

– 2010).

Docket Item 9

. PRD Label Data Report: Food/Feed & Non

- Food/Non Feed Uses

Considered in Registration Review Work Planning

Pr allethrin (12 8722 )

( September 21

, 20 11 )

This table lists the food/feed and non

- food/non

- feed uses for Pr allethrin

.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0364

Filed September 22, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ERIC JOSEPH RYAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Daniel Kitchen, 

District Associate Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of indecent contact 

with a child by raising ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

After a jury convicted Eric Ryan of two counts of indecent contact with a 

child, he appeals. But, his appeal focuses only on his trial counsel’s alleged 

ineffective assistance.1 As judgment was not entered in Ryan’s case until 

February 2020, this court has no authority to decide a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See Iowa Code § 814.7 (2020); State v. 

Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140, 154 (Iowa 2021). While Ryan raises reasons we should 

still review his claims, none win the day.2 Accordingly, we affirm without further 

opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).

AFFIRMED.

 

1 The ineffective-assistance claims involve allegations trial counsel (1) did not 

object to comments made by the State during closing and opening, (2) failed to 

move for mistrial when the jury observed the witnesses crying and refusing to enter 

the courtroom, and (3) failed to strike the comments of law enforcement that 

children do not lie about sexual abuse.

2 Ryan argues Iowa Code section 814.7 violates the Equal Protection clause, 

denies him due process and the right to effective counsel on appeal, and 

improperly restricts the role of the appellate courts. See State v. Treptow, 960 

N.W.2d 98, 104-08 (Iowa 2021) (finding unsuccessful the appellant’s challenges 

to 814.7 on separation-of-powers, equal protection, right to effective assistance of 

counsel on direct appeal, and due process grounds).
### The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District 2 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3203

___________ Charles Patterson, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Arkansas. * [UNPUBLISHED] Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 12, 1997 Filed: March 28, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District 1 Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ch arles Patterson appeals the district court’s denial of his 2 8 2 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Patterson contends that the sixteen-month, six-day delay in bringing him to trial in state court--in part the product of his two intervening federal criminal trials--

### -2-

constituted a denial of his speedy trial rights under the Sixth Amendment and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and hi s due process rights. The State argues that these claims are procedurally barred and are withou t mer it. We reach the merits of Patterson’s claims, and affirm for th e reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, particularly its finding that Patte rson suffered no prejudice from the delay. The judgment i s affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5441

_____________________________

ST. JAMES HEALTHCARE GROUP,

INC. d/b/a St. James Health and 

Rehabilitation Center on behalf 

of Betty Roberts,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Department of Children and Families.

Melissa Roedel, Hearing Officer.

December 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Elizabeth Margaret Boyle, Osprey, for Appellant.

Camille Larson, Assistant Region Counsel, NW Region, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation for the quarter ended January 31, 2008, I, David A. Butler, Chief Financial Officer,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. the Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008, 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 Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Biopure Corporation.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Butler            
|David A. Butler                
|Interim Chief Financial Officer

March 17, 2008
#### § 1.1081-1 Terms used.

The following terms, when used in this section and §§ 1.1081-2 to 1.1083-1, inclusive, shall have the meanings assigned to them in section 1083: *Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission*; *registered holding company*; *holding company system*; *associate company*; *majority-owned subsidiary company*; *system group*; *nonexempt property*; and *stock or securities.* Any other term used in this section and §§ 1.1081-2 to 1.1083-1, inclusive, which is defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, shall be given the respective definition contained in such Code.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8061 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8061

To temporarily provide additional deposits into the Crime Victims Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2024

 Mrs. Wagner (for herself, Mr. Moran, Mrs. Dingell, Mrs. Bice, and Mr. 
    Costa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To temporarily provide additional deposits into the Crime Victims Fund.

    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 ``Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. DEPOSITS IN CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

    Section 1402(b)(6) of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 
20101) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) from the date of enactment through fiscal 
                year 2029, sections 3729 through 3731 of title 31, 
                United States Code (commonly known as the `False Claims 
                Act'), provided that--
                            ``(i) amounts necessary to remunerate qui 
                        tam plaintiffs as described in subsection (d) 
                        of section 3730 of title 31, United States 
                        Code, are not available for deposit to the 
                        Fund; and
                            ``(ii) amounts necessary to reimburse the 
                        United States Government for the damages which 
                        the Government sustains from acts described in 
                        subsection (a) of section 3729 of title 31, 
                        United States Code, are not available for 
                        deposit to the Fund.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11199-11200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5137]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration


150th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 
150th open meeting of the full Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans will be held on March 22, 2010.
    The session will take place in Room S-2508, U.S. Department of 
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. The purpose 
of the open meeting, which will run from 1:30 p.m. to approximately 
4:30 p.m., is to introduce the Council Chair and Vice Chair, receive an 
update from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits 
Security Administration, and determine the topics to be addressed by 
the Council in 2010.
    Organizations or members of the public wishing to submit a written 
statement may do so by submitting 30 copies on or before March 15, 2010 
to Larry Good, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Suite N-5623, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210. Statements received on or before March 15, 2010 
will be included in the record of the meeting. Individuals or 
representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory 
Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or 
telephone (202) 693-8668. Oral presentations will be limited to ten 
minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted 
for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special 
accommodations should contact Larry Good by March 15 at the address 
indicated.


[[Page 11200]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of February, 2010.
Phyllis C. Borzi,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, United 
States Department of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2010-5137 Filed 3-5-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
# C_2018328EN.01003401.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — Brugg Kabel and Kabelwerke Brugg v Commission

(Case T-441/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Proof of the infringement - Duration of participation - Public distancing - Calculation of the fine - Gravity of the infringement - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Brugg Kabel AG (Brugg, Switzerland) and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding (Brugg) (represented by: A. Rinne, A. Boos and M. Lichtenegger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Leupold, H. van Vliet and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by A. Israel, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Brugg Kabel AG and Kabelwerke Brugg AG Holding to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

---
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3770 Wrist joint carpal trapezium polymer prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A wrist joint carpal trapezium polymer prosthesis is a one-piece device made of silicone elastomer or silicone elastomer/polyester material intended to be implanted to replace the carpal trapezium bone of the wrist.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2016392EN.01002401.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — U4U and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-17/14) (1)

1

((Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country - Career of officials with the grade of administrator - Amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 - Irregularities during the procedure for adopting the measures - Failure to consult the Staff Regulations Committee and the trade unions))

(2016/C 392/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Union pour l’Unité (U4U) (Brussels, Belgium), Unité & Solidarité — Hors Union (USHU) (Brussels), Regroupement Syndical (RS) (St Josse ten Noode, Belgium) and Georges Vlandas (Brussels) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and E. Taneva, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, and subsequently by M. Bauer, M. Veiga and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Article 1(27), (61), (70) and (73)(k) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as those provisions amend Article 45 and annexes I, X and XIII of those regulations, annexed to Regulation No 31 (EEC)/11(EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 45, p. 1385).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Union pour l’Unité (U4U), Unité & solidarité — Hors Union (USHU), Regroupement Syndical (RS) and Mr Georges Vlandas to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Union pour l’Unité (U4U), Unité & solidarité — Hors Union (USHU), Regroupement Syndical (RS) and Mr Georges Vlandas to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

1

---
§ 1.1313(a)-1 Decision by Tax Court or other court as a determination. ( a ) A determination may take the form of a decision by the Tax Court of the United States or a judgment, decree, or other order by any court of competent jurisdiction, which has become final.
( b ) The date upon which a decision by the Tax Court becomes final is prescribed in section 7481.
( c ) The date upon which a judgment of any other court becomes final must be determined upon the basis of the facts in the particular case. Ordinarily, a judgment of a United States district court becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for taking an appeal, if no such appeal is duly taken within such time; and a judgment of the United States Court of Claims becomes final upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certiorari if no such petition is duly filed within such time.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12036, Nov. 26, 1960]