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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8112 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to further require certain 

additional provider screening under the Medicaid program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2024 

Mr. D’ESPOSITO 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 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, 

3 SECTION 1. MEDICAID PROVIDER SCREENING REQUIRE4 MENTS. 

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

6 U.S.C. 1396a(kk)(1)) is amended— 

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

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The State’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8112 IH

1 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL PROVIDER SCREEN2 ING.—Beginning January 1, 2025, as part of 

3 the enrollment (or revalidation of enrollment) of 

4 a provider or supplier under this title, and not 

5 less frequently than quarterly during the period 

6 that such provider or supplier is so enrolled, the 

7 State conducts a check of any database or simi8 lar system developed pursuant to section 

9 6401(b)(2) of the Patient Protection and Af10 fordable Care Act to determine whether the 

11 Secretary has terminated the participation of 

12 such provider or supplier under title XVIII, any 

13 other State plan under this title (or waiver of 

14 the plan), or any State child health plan under 

15 title XXI (or waiver of the plan).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,912

EX PARTE MARTINIANO R. FLORES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W219-80171-06-HC IN THE 416TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of three counts of

aggravated sexual assault of a child, three counts of indecencywith a child by contact, and one count

of indecency with a child by exposure. He was sentenced to three twenty-year sentences, two fiveyear sentences, and two ten-year sentences, with two of the twenty-year sentences to be served

consecutively, and the other sentences to be served concurrently. The Fifth Court of Appeals

affirmed his conviction. Flores v. State, No. 05-06-01297-CR (Tex. App. – Dallas, June 10, 2008).

. 
2

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance

because counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed

to advise him of his right to petition pro se for discretionary review. We remanded this application

to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. In addition, the trial court obtained

an affidavit from the Program Supervisor of the Mail System Coordinators Panel, indicating that a

review of the incoming mail logs at the unit where Applicant was housed during the pendency of his

appeal showed that Applicant received no mail during the period for filing a PDR. Based on these

affidavits, the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of

his right to petition for discretionary review pro se. The trial court recommends that relief be

granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionaryreview of the judgment of the Fifth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 05-06-01297-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 219-80171-06 from the 416th District Court of Collin

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Applicant's remaining claims are dismissed. See Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: November 7, 2012

Do not publish
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 11, 2022

No. 04-22-00424-CV

UNITED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellant

v.

Patricia Y. MAYERS,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CVH001030-D1

Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief is currently due August 17, 2022. On August 10, 2022, appellant filed 

an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief until September 6, 2022. 

After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file its brief by 

September 6, 2022. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.14

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                     TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
                          OF THE WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.
                         ASSOCIATE STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                               (2002 RESTATEMENT)

      Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), hereby
makes this First Amendment to the First Amendment and Restatement of the
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. Associate Stock Incentive Plan (2002 Restatement),
generally effective as of January 1, 1997, with reference to the following
facts:

      A. The Company maintains the Williams-Sonoma, Inc. Associate Stock
Incentive Plan, which was most recently amended and restated in its entirety in
2002, (the "Plan") for the benefit of its employees.

      B. By Section 8.4 of the Plan, the Company has reserved the right to amend
the Plan.

      NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of November 1,
2002, as follows:

      1. Section 2.3.4(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to
provide as follows:

      "(b) Any portion of a Participant's Salary Deferral Contribution Account
      which is invested in the Company Stock Fund shall not thereafter be
      reinvested in any of the other investment funds, pools or vehicles
      selected by the Committee; except that, effective November 1, 2002, any
      portion of a Participant's Salary Deferral Contribution Account which is
      invested in the Company Stock Fund and has been received by the Trustee as
      of such date may, at the election of the Participant, be reinvested in any
      other investment funds, pools or vehicles selected by the Committee.
      Thereafter, on the third business day of each calendar quarter, any
      portion of a Participant's Salary Deferral Contribution Account which is
      invested in the Company Stock Fund and has been received by the Trustee as
      of such date may be reinvested, at the election of the Participant, in any
      other investment funds, pools or vehicles selected by the Committee."

      2. In all other respects, the terms and provisions of the Plan are hereby
ratified and declared to remain in full force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. has executed this First
Amendment as of the 1 of November, 2002.

                                                 WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC.


                                                 By: /s/ John S. Bronson
                                                     -----------------------
Order entered November 20, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01080-CV

BRETT SHIPP, Appellant

V.

DR. RICHARD MALOUF, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-06268-C

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s November 8, 2013 unopposed motion for leave to retain 

or amend his brief. We treat appellant’s motion as a motion to extend the word limit of his brief. 

We GRANT appellant’s motion. Appellant’s brief was properly filed with this Court on 

September 18, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LASHIFY, INC.,

Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

QINGDAO HOLLYREN COSMETICS CO., LTD, dba 

Hollyren, QINGDAO XIZI INTERNATIONAL 

TRADING CO., LTD, dba Xizi Lashes, QIANGDAO 

LASHBEAUTY COSMETIC CO., LTD, dba 

Worldbeauty, KISS NAIL PRODUCTS, INC., ULTA 

SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., 

WALMART, INC., CVS PHARMACY, INC., ARTEMIS 

FAMILY BEGINNINGS, INC., dba Lilac Street, 

ALICIA ZENG,

Intervenors

______________________

2022-1566

______________________

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1226.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Case: 22-1566 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 06/01/2022
2 LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Appellee International Trade Commission moves to 

dismiss Appeal No. 2022-1566 as premature. ECF No. 21. 

Lashify, Inc. opposes dismissal and requests instead that 

the appeal be held in abeyance. ECF No. 26.

Lashify filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the 

Commission’s decision not to review certain non-infringement findings regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,721,984. ECF 

No. 1-2 at 2. But even Lashify’s notice characterized the 

Commission’s decision as not “final” for purposes of judicial 

review under Tessera, Inc. v. ITC, 646 F.3d 1357, 1367–69 

(Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c)), based on the 

Commission’s pending consideration of certain other issues

in the investigation. ECF No. 1-2 at 4. We agree with the 

parties that, under the circumstances of this case, we lack 

jurisdiction over Lashify’s appeal because there has been

no final determination. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court determines that dismissal (rather than 

a stay) is appropriate in this case, see, e.g., A & J Mfg., LLC 

v. ITC, 584 F. App’x 933 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but the court will 

allow Lashify to reinstate its appeal if, within 60 days of 

the entry of this order, it appeals from a final determination. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 22-1566 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 06/01/2022
LASHIFY, INC. v. ITC 3

(1) The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, subject, however, to reinstatement under the same docket 

number without payment of any additional filing fee if, 

within 60 days of the entry of this order, Lashify appeals 

from the entry of a final determination. The mandate shall 

issue simultaneously with this order. 

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs. 

June 1, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 1, 2022

Case: 22-1566 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 06/01/2022
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & AssetReceiving Corporation 

60 WALL ST

NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836

 

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for COMM 2015-CCRE26 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates

 

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of October 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

/s/ Jeffrey Coletta

Jeffrey Coletta

Assistant Secretary

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |   |
|------------------------|--------|
#### § 1.508-4 Effective date.

Except as otherwise provided, §§ 1.508-1 through 1.508-3 shall take effect on January 1, 1970.

(Sec. 7805 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805)

[T.D. 7232, 37 FR 28294, Dec. 22, 1972]
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 293

To commend the exemplary leadership of the majority leader.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To commend the exemplary leadership of the majority leader.

1 Resolved, That the thanks of the Senate are hereby

2 tendered to the distinguished majority leader, the Senator

3 from Maine, the Honorable George J. Mitchell, for his ex4 emplary leadership and the cooperative and dedicated

5 manner in which he has performed his leadership respon6 sibilities in the conduct of Senate business during the sec7 ond session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 247 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 247

Condemning the recent acts of international terrorism committed against 
  Jewish communities in Argentina, Panama, and Great Britain, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

Mr. Metzenbaum (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Pell, Ms. 
  Mikulski, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wofford, Mr. 
  Robb, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Levin) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Condemning the recent acts of international terrorism committed against 
  Jewish communities in Argentina, Panama, and Great Britain, and for 
                            other purposes.

Whereas, on September 13, 1993, Israel and the Palestinian Liberation 
        Organization opened a new era of Middle East peace negotiations;
Whereas, on July 27, 1994, Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan declared 
        their 46-year state of hostilities at an end, giving additional momentum 
        to the Middle East peace process;
Whereas, radical groups have repeatedly pledged to derail the peace process 
        through terrorist acts in the Middle East and around the world;
Whereas, on July 18, 1994, more than 100 people were killed and 230 were wounded 
        when a bomb exploded outside a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, 
        Argentina;
Whereas, on July 19, 1994, 21 people, more than one-half of whom were Jewish 
        businessmen, were killed when their aircraft was destroyed by a bomb 
        over Colon, Panama;
Whereas, on July 26, 1994, 14 people were wounded when a bomb exploded outside 
        the Embassy of Israel in London, Great Britain; and
Whereas, on July 27, 1994, 5 people were wounded when a bomb exploded outside a 
        Jewish community center in London, Great Britain: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) the Senate condemns the continued use of violence to 
        pursue political objectives;
            (2) the Senate condemns the worldwide targeting of Jewish 
        communities by terrorists determined to disrupt the Middle East 
        peace process;
            (3) the Senate commends the people of Argentina, of Panama, 
        and of Great Britain for the outrage they expressed in response 
        to these acts of terror; and
            (4) the Senate recognizes the efforts of Argentina, Panama, 
        and Great Britain to investigate these terrorist incidents, 
        urges their governments to commit any resources necessary to 
        apprehend the perpetrators, and urges adoption of any lawful 
        measures to prevent a recurrence of such horrible acts.

                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Aakil Holdings Trust/Raymond Groves and Norris Groves v. 2011 

Homes, LLC

Appellate case number: 01-22-00356-CV

Trial court case number: 1182819

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

Appellant Norris Groves filed a notice of appeal on his own behalf and on behalf of the 

Aakil Holdings Trust and Raymond Groves. The clerk’s record also indicates that Norris Groves 

is the executor of the Estate of Betty J. Groves. On June 28, 2022, Norris Groves filed an 

appellants’ brief on behalf of Aakil Holdings Trust and the Estate of Betty J. Groves.

A non-attorney pro se is prohibited from appearing in an appellate court in the capacity of 

executor of an estate, as trustee of a trust, or on behalf of other persons. See In re Guetersloh, 326 

S.W.3d 737, 740 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, orig. proceeding). This is because a pro se who 

attempts to represent others or attempts to act on behalf of a trust or estate is necessarily engaging 

in the unauthorized practice of law. See id. 

Accordingly, the Court strikes appellants’ brief filed on June 28, 2022 because Norris 

Groves has asserted issues on behalf of the Aakil Holdings Trust, the Estate of Betty J. Groves, 

and Raymond Groves. Norris Groves may refile the appellant’s brief raising issues on his own 

behalf and if he chooses to do so, the revised appellant’s brief will be due in 30 days from the 

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Peter Kelly_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___August 23, 2022____
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-722V 

Filed: April 29, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

GERALD JANSEN, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Lawrence R. Cohan, Anapol Weiss, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Lisa Ann Watts, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On May 22, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that he developed Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”) as a result 

of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 12, 2016. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 26, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent has reviewed the medical records filed in this case and 

has concluded that petition has satisfied the criteria set forth in the Vaccine Injury Table. 

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 
Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites 

for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
39357.

#### HUNTER v. THE STATE.

Decided March 15, 1962.

*C. James Jessee, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Paul Webb, Solicitor-General, Frank S. French, Eugene L. Tiller,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

1. Special ground 6 assigns error because the court, over the timely objection of the defendant, permitted a witness for the State to testify in rebuttal on behalf of the State after remaining in the courtroom during the examination of all other witnesses after the rule of sequestration had been invoked. The record does not disclose that a request was made by the State to allow this witness, one of the investigating officers, to remain in the courtroom to assist in the trial of the case. “The mandate of the law is that *in all cases*either party shall have the right to have the witnesses of the other party examined out of the hearing of each other.” *Poultryland, Inc. v. Anderson,*200 Ga. 549, 562 (37 SE2d 785). See *Montos v. State,*212 Ga. 764 (95 SE2d 792).

“It was error to permit a witness for the State, over timely objections of the defendant, to remain in the courtroom during the examination of other witnesses, after the rule had been invoked and the witnesses had been ordered sequestered, and subsequently to allow this witness to testify for the State.” *565
      *McGruder v. State,*213 Ga. 259 (9) (98 SE2d 564). Nothing appearing in the record in this case to bring it within any exceptions to this rule, the court erred in allowing this witness to testify over objection from the defendant, after remaining in the courtroom when the sequestration of the witnesses had been ordered by the court.

2. Special grounds 8 and 9 assign error on the admission of testimony offered by the State for the purpose of impeachment upon the ground that the proper foundation had not been laid for such evidence. These grounds are without merit.

3. Special ground 12 assigns error because the court failed to remove the jury from the courtroom before and at the time the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict. It is well established that the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in a criminal case cannot be made the subject matter of an assignment of error in the reviewing court. *Nalley v. State,*11 Ga. App. 15 (74 SE 567); *Johnson v. State,*75 Ga. App. 581, 583 (44 SE2d 149). The defendant, not being entitled to have the court direct a verdict in his favor, cannot complain that he was injured because the motion was made in the presence of the jury. This ground is without merit.

4. Special ground 11 has been abandoned. The matter complained of in special ground 10 is not likely to recur on another trial; and this ground and the general grounds therefore are not ruled upon since the case is to be retried. The remaining special grounds are without merit.

For the reasons set forth in division one the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*