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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8112 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to further 

require certain additional provider screening under the 

Medicaid program. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 8112 RFS

1 SECTION 1. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIRE2 MENTS. 

3 Section 1902(kk)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)(1)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘The State’’ and inserting: 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The State’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PROVIDER SCREEN10 ING.—Beginning January 1, 2027, as part of 

11 the enrollment (or reenrollment or revalidation 

12 of enrollment) of a provider or supplier under 

13 this title, and not less frequently than monthly 

14 during the period that such provider or supplier 

15 is so enrolled, the State conducts a check of any 

16 database or similar system developed pursuant 

17 to section 6401(b)(2) of the Patient Protection 

18 and Affordable Care Act to determine whether 

19 the Secretary has terminated the participation 

20 of such provider or supplier under title XVIII, 

21 or whether any other State has terminated the 

22 participation of such provider or supplier under 

23 such other State’s State plan under this title 

24 (or waiver of the plan), or such other State’s 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 8112 RFS

1 State child health plan under title XXI (or 

2 waiver of the plan).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### § 1.381(c)(24)-1 Work incentive program credit carryovers in certain corporate acquisitions.

The computation of carryovers and carrybacks of unused WIN credits in a transaction to which section 381 applies shall be made under the principles of § 1.381(c)(23)-1 (relating to the computation of carryovers and carrybacks of unused investment credits), except that the provisions of paragraph (c)(4) and paragraph (e)(6), (7), and (8) of such section shall not apply.

(Secs. 381(c)(23), 76 Stat. 971 (26 U.S.C. 381(c)(23), 381(c)(24)) 85 Stat. 557 (26 U.S.C. 381(c)(24)), 7805, 68A Stat. 917 (26 U.S.C. 7805))

[T.D. 7289, 38 FR 30557, Nov. 6, 1973]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ADONAY CHICAS CLAROS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71571 

Agency No. A206-270-678 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Adonay Chicas Claros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71571 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and 

we remand. 

Chicas Claros’ request to remand and terminate proceedings for lack of 

jurisdiction is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 894-95 (9th 

Cir. 2020) (notice to appear need not include time, date, or place of initial hearing 

to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).

The agency found that Chicas Claros failed to establish past harm rising to 

the level of persecution. Substantial evidence does not support that determination. 

See Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir. 2002) (threats coupled with 

close confrontation by armed men rose to the level of persecution). Thus, we grant 

the petition for review as to Chicas Claros’ asylum and withholding of removal 

claims, and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this 

disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Chicas Claros failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 
3 19-71571 

Chicas Claros’ removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA. 

The government must bear the costs for this petition for review. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 

REMANDED.
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 126

To express the sense of the Senate that the identification of trade

liberalization priorities under ‘‘Super 301’’ should be made permanent.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 30, 1993

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. DANFORTH, Mr. HOLLINGS,

Mr. RIEGLE, Mr. DASCHLE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

KERRY, Mr. BYRD, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. LEVIN)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Finance

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate that the identification

of trade liberalization priorities under ‘‘Super 301’’

should be made permanent.

Whereas foreign barriers to United States exports have contributed to the Nation’s trade deficits, and are threatening the loss of manufacturing jobs, the erosion of our tax

base, the decline in the strength of the United States

economy and of the American standard of living, and the

vitality of the technological, industrial, and agricultural

base of the United States; and

Whereas the President should have the appropriate tools for

combating unfair and predatory trade practices that
2

•SRES 126 IS

threaten American manufacturing and service industries

and agriculture: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that not

2 later than December 15, 1993, amendments to section 310

3 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2420) should be en4 acted to establish the permanent requirement that not

5 later than April 30th of each year the United States Trade

6 Representative shall identify trade liberalization priorities

7 under ‘‘Super 301’’.

Æ
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). t k/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A N TO LI N A N D REW M A RK S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. JE N N IN G S , A ss i st antF i el d O ff i ce D ir e c to ro f

I C E ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 35837 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 8 - mc - 0 5 0 4 5 - RSL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtS . L a s ni k, C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r17, 2009 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , T R O T T , an dT A S H IM A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nt ol i n A ndr e w M a rks , a n i m m i gr a t i on de t a i ne e , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng, pur s ua ntt o apr e - f i l i ng r e vi e w or de r , hi s a c t i on



# FI LED DE C 08 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSt k / Res ea r ch 08- 35837 2 brou gh tun der B i ve ns v. Si x U nkno w n N

am ed A gent

s of Fed. B ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Mol

s kiv . E v e r

gr e e n D y nas t yC or p. , 500 F . 3d 1 0 4 7 , 1 0 5 6 - 5 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( e n tryo f ap r e - f ilin g o r d e ra g a in s t a v e x a tio u s litig a n t) ; In re Fi l lba ch , 22 3 F . 3d . 10 89 , 10 90 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( di sm i ss al f o rf a i l u r e t o c o mp l yw i th av e x a t i o u s l i t i g a n to r d e r ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bye nf or c i ng apr e - f

i l i ng r e v ie w o r d e rth a t h a db e e n is s u e da f te rg iv in g M a rk s n o tic e a n da n o p p o rtu n ityto be he a r d, de ve l opi ng ar e c or d f orr e vi e w , m a ki ng f

i ndi ngs of

pr e vi ous ha r a s s m e nt a n df r iv o lo u s f

ilin g s , an dn a rr o w lyta ilo r in g th e r e m e d y . See M ol ski , 50 0 F . 3d at 1057 ( e xpl a i ni ng f

ourf a c t or s di s tr i c tc ourt s m us te xa m i ne be f or e e nt e r i ng pre- fi l i ng re vi ew orders ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng M a rks ’ s a c t i on b e c au s e h e f

a ile dto c o m p lyw ith th e p r e - f ilin g r e v ie w o r d e r , w h ic h r e q u ir e dh im to s ubm i ta n a f

f i da vi t , s i gne d unde rthe pe na l tyof pe r j ury , ve r i f

y i ng tha the ha d not p r e v io u s lylitig a te da n yis s u e s r a is e din h is p r o p o s e dc o m p la in t. M a rk s ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . A F F I R M E D .
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 120 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 120

To commend the Louisiana State University (LSU) Tigers for winning the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association Baseball College World Series.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 17 (legislative day, June 15), 1993

   Mr. Johnston (for himself and Mr. Breaux) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                              A RESOLUTION

 
To commend the Louisiana State University (LSU) Tigers for winning the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association Baseball College World Series.

Whereas the baseball team of Louisiana State University has completed another 
        outstanding season;
Whereas LSU coach Skip Bertman, two-time National Coach of the Year, has led the 
        Tigers to 483 victories and only 182 losses in his nine years at the 
        helm;
Whereas the LSU Tiger baseball team has won four consecutive Southeastern 
        Conference Championships;
Whereas the LSU Tigers have reached the College World Series in six of the last 
        eight years, winning twice;
Whereas the 1993 LSU Tiger baseball team compiled a record of 53-17-1 for their 
        fifth consecutive 50-win season; and
Whereas the LSU Tigers won the 1993 NCAA College World Series: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate commends the Fighting Tigers of Louisiana 
State University for having won the 1993 National Collegiate Athletic 
Association Baseball College World Series.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0059

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ROBERT AYRES DASILVA JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until May 11, 2022, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 11 2022

04/11/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0059
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.4300 Intraocular lens guide. ( a ) *Identification.* An intraocular lens guide is a device intended to be inserted into the eye during surgery to direct the insertion of an intraocular lens and be removed after insertion is completed.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). Except when used as folders or injectors for soft or foldable intraocular lenses, the device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2321, 2000]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30601 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES A. MCDADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-50050-2

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James A. McDade appeals his sentences of 360 months’

imprisonment and five years’ supervised release on Count 1 and

240 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release on

Count 3, after being convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and

money laundering.

McDade argues that the Sixth Amendment requires that the

quantities of contraband and money that the trial court relied on

in determining the guideline range in sentencing should be
No. 01-30601

-2-

alleged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

He relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and

United States v. Norris, 143 F.Supp.2d 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), for

the proposition that all facts which expose the defendant to a

particular range of sentencing must be charged and proven.

McDade admits that his argument is foreclosed by this

court’s precedent. In United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556,

576 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1100 (2001), amended

in part on rehearing by Meshack, 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2001),

cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 142 (2001), we specifically rejected

McDade’s argument that all facts which affect the sentencing

range must be charged and proven. We held that Apprendi should

be given a limited reading and that the rule of Apprendi applied

only to facts that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the

statutory maximum. 225 F.3d at 576. This reading of Apprendi

was reaffirmed in United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 166

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1152 (2001) and United

States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

121 S. Ct. 1163 (2001) (“Apprendi should be applied only to cases

in which a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, not to cases

in which a sentence is enhanced within the statutory range based

on a finding of drug quantity.”).

McDade admits that the quantity of drugs needed for the

enhanced penalty of 10 years to life in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)

was stated in the indictment and submitted to the jury. He does

not allege that he was sentenced beyond the statutory maximum of
No. 01-30601

-3-

life on Count 1 or 20 years on Count 3. McDade’s sentences are

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.408-5 Annual reports by trustees or issuers. ( a ) *In general.* The trustee of an individual retirement account or the issuer of an individual retirement annuity shall make annual calendar year reports concerning the status of the account or annuity. The report shall contain the information required in paragraph (b) and be furnished or filed in the manner and time specified in paragraph (c).
( b ) *Information required to be included in the annual reports.* The annual calendar year report shall contain the following information for transactions occurring during the calendar year— ( 1 ) The amount of contributions;
( 2 ) The amount of distributions;
( 3 ) In the case of an endowment contract, the amount of the premium paid allocable to the cost of life insurance;
( 4 ) The name and address of the trustee or issuer; and
( 5 ) Such other information as the Commissioner may require.
( c ) *Manner and time for filing.* ( 1 ) The annual report shall be furnished to the individual on whose behalf the account is established or in whose name the annuity is purchased (or the beneficiary of the individual or owner). The report shall be furnished on or before the 30th day of June following the calendar year for which the report is required.
( 2 ) The Commissioner may require the annual report to be filed with the Service at the time the Commissioner specifies.
( d ) *Penalties.* Section 6693 prescribes penalties for failure to file the annual report.
( e ) *Effective date.* This section shall apply to reports for calendar years after 1978.
( f ) *Reports for years prior to 1979.* For years prior to 1979, a trustee or issuer shall make reports in the time and manner as the Commissioner requires.
[T.D. 7714, 45 FR 52795, Aug. 8, 1980]
Attachment A-8. Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA)

This evaluation is authorized through provisions in the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 

2002. Specifically, ESRA Part D, Section 174 (4) describes the role of regional education 

laboratories and its mission and function. One aspect of that role is

(4) in the event such quality applied research does not exist as determined by the 

regional educational laboratory or the Department, carrying out applied research 

projects that are designed to serve the particular educational needs (in 

prekindergarten through grade 16) of the region in which the regional educational 

laboratory is located, that reflect findings from scientifically valid research, and that 

result in user-friendly, replicable school-based classroom applications geared toward 

promoting increased student achievement, including using applied research to assist 

in solving site-specific problems and assisting in development activities (including 

high-quality and on-going professional development and effective parental 

involvement strategies) (ESRA, Part D, Section 174, f.4).
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00644

- CV

HYBISCUS FOOD INC. and Sanjiv Chandan, Individually,

Appellants

v.

Atul SARASWAT

, Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007

- CI

- 03159

Honorable Laura Salinas, 1 Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed jointly and severally against Appellants Hybiscus

Food Inc. and Sanjiv Chandan, individually.

SIGNED November 6, 2013.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

1 The Honorable Martha Tanner presided at the trial and signed the final judgment.
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.9 Limitations of exemptions from section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The exemption from the requirement of premarket notification (section 510(k) of the act) for a generic type of class I or II device is only to the extent that the device has existing or reasonably foreseeable characteristics of commercially distributed devices within that generic type or, in the case of in vitro diagnostic devices, only to the extent that misdiagnosis as a result of using the device would not be associated with high morbidity or mortality. Accordingly, manufacturers of any commercially distributed class I or II device for which FDA has granted an exemption from the requirement of premarket notification must still submit a premarket notification to FDA before introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution the device when: ( a ) The device is intended for a use different from the intended use of a legally marketed device in that generic type of device; e.g., the device is intended for a different medical purpose, or the device is intended for lay use where the former intended use was by health care professionals only;
( b ) The modified device operates using a different fundamental scientific technology than a legally marketed device in that generic type of device; e.g., a surgical instrument cuts tissue with a laser beam rather than with a sharpened metal blade, or an in vitro diagnostic device detects or identifies infectious agents by using deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) probe or nucleic acid hybridization technology rather than culture or immunoassay technology; or
( c ) The device is an in vitro device that is intended: ( 1 ) For use in the diagnosis, monitoring, or screening of neoplastic diseases with the exception of immunohistochemical devices;
( 2 ) For use in screening or diagnosis of familial or acquired genetic disorders, including inborn errors of metabolism;
( 3 ) For measuring an analyte that serves as a surrogate marker for screening, diagnosis, or monitoring life-threatening diseases such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic or active hepatitis, tuberculosis, or myocardial infarction or to monitor therapy;
( 4 ) For assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases;
( 5 ) For use in diabetes management;
( 6 ) For identifying or inferring the identity of a microorganism directly from clinical material;
( 7 ) For detection of antibodies to microorganisms other than immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgG assays when the results are not qualitative, or are used to determine immunity, or the assay is intended for use in matrices other than serum or plasma;
( 8 ) For noninvasive testing as defined in § 812.3(k) of this chapter; and
( 9 ) For near patient testing (point of care).
[65 FR 2320, Jan. 14, 2000]