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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 419 

To require the Food and Drug Administration to revoke the approval of 

one opioid pain medication for each new opioid pain medication approved. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Food and Drug Administration to revoke 

the approval of one opioid pain medication for each new 

opioid pain medication approved. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 from Dangerous Opioids Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) Opioids killed more than 33,000 people in 

9 the United States in 2015, more than any year on 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 419 IS

1 record. Nearly half of all opioid overdose deaths in2 volve a prescription opioid. 

3 (2) According to the Centers for Disease Con4 trol, 3 out of 4 new heroin users abused prescription 

5 opioids before moving to heroin. 

6 (3) The United States makes up only 4.6 per7 cent of the world’s population, but consumes 80 per8 cent of its opioid pain medications. 

9 (4) In 2012, health care providers wrote 

10 259,000,000 prescriptions for painkillers, enough for 

11 every individual in the United States to have a bottle 

12 of pills. 

13 (5) The amount of prescription opioids sold in 

14 the United States has nearly quadrupled since 1999 

15 without a reported increase in pain. At the same 

16 time overdose deaths involving opioids have also 

17 quadrupled since 1999. 

18 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO REVOKE APPROVAL. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi20 sion of law, if the Secretary of Health and Human Serv21 ices (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) ap22 proves an application under subsection (b) or (j) of section 

23 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

24 U.S.C. 355) for an opioid drug, the Secretary shall revoke 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 419 IS

1 the approval of another opioid drug previously approved 

2 under such subsection (b) or (j). 

3 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In determining the drug for 

4 which the Secretary will revoke approval pursuant to sub5 section (a), the Secretary shall— 

6 (1) prioritize revocation of non-abuse deterrent 

7 formulations of opioid drugs; and 

8 (2) consider the public health impact of the 

9 opioid drug being on the market. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4679

_____________________________
T IFFANI H ARRIS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for L eon County

. Robert R. Wheeler , Judge

. November 19, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.


### A FFIRMED



### .
R OBERTS , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender; Susannah Loumiet, Steven Seliger and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
§ 417.201 Scope and applicability. ( a ) This subpart contains requirements for performing the flight safety analysis required by § 417.107(f).
( b ) The flight safety analysis requirements of this subpart apply to the flight of any launch vehicle that must use a flight safety system as required by § 417.107(a), except as permitted by paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) The flight safety analysis requirements of §§ 417.203, 417.205, 417.207, 417.211, 417.223, 417.224, 417.225, 417.227, 417.229, 417.231, and 417.233 apply to the flight of any unguided suborbital launch vehicle that uses a wind-weighting safety system. Appendices B, C, and I of this part also apply.
( d ) For any alternative flight safety system approved by the FAA under § 417.301(b), the FAA will determine during the licensing process which of the analyses required by this subpart apply.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-240-CV

MARK SCHUSTER								APPELLANT

	V.

TEXASBANK	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

We have considered the parties “Agreed Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court's opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM	

PANEL D:	DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

		         DELIVERED: October 9, 2003
#### [509] Van Rensselaer *vs.*Fay.

When a hearing before referees is postponed on the application of the *plaintiff,*he must pay costs the same as a defendant would be bound to do, were the postponement on his application.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 amended annual report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (1) the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ David Guthrie
David Guthrie, Principal Executive Officer

Date: July 29, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.405 Responsive documents. ( a ) *Answers.* Within fifteen (15) days after the date of service of a formal complaint, each respondent shall file an answer in conformance with and subject to the requirements of § 302.408(b). Extensions of time for filing an answer may be granted by the Assistant General Counsel for good cause shown.
( b ) *Offers to satisfy.* A respondent in a formal complaint may offer to satisfy the complaint through submission of facts, offer of settlement or proposal of adjustment. Such offer shall be in writing and shall be served, within fifteen (15) days after service of the complaint, upon the same persons and in the same manner as an answer. The submittal of an offer to satisfy the complaint shall not excuse the filing of an answer.
( c ) *Motions to dismiss.* Motions to dismiss a formal complaint shall not be filed prior to the filing of a notice instituting an enforcement proceeding with respect to such complaint or a portion thereof.
#### § 296.3 Indirect cargo air carrier.

An indirect cargo air carrier is any U.S. citizen who undertakes to engage indirectly in air transportation of property, and uses for the whole or any part of such transportation the services of an air carrier or a foreign air carrier that directly engages in the operation of aircraft under a certificate, regulation, order, or permit issued by the Department of Transportation or its predecessor to the extent that those actions, by law, are still in effect, or the services of its agent, or of another indirect cargo air carrier.

[ER-1261, 46 FR 54727, Nov. 4, 1981, as amended by Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40103, Sept. 2, 1992; DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019]
#### In the Matter of Robert W. Goelet, Respondent, against Paul Moss, as Commissioner of Licenses of the City of New York, Appellant.

Argued January 4, 1937;

decided January 19, 1937.

*504
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (William S. Gaud, Jr., Paxton Blair*and *Charles G. Weinstein*of counsel), for appellant.

*Charles R. Barrett, John N. Regan*and *Edward G. Bathon*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Lougkran and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman and Finch, JJ.
Served: February 7, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

### CHAU T AUQUA AIRLINES, INC. LYNX AVIATION, INC.

and REPUBLIC AIRLINES, INC.

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

### NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME On February

2 , 2011 , Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (“Chautauqua”), Lynx Aviation, In c. (“Ly nx”), and Republic Airlines, In c. (“Republic”) , all U.S. certificated air carrier s , 1 requested that the Department register the trade name “ Frontier Express ” for use in certain of its air transportation operations. Part 215 of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing to use an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule further states that the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification to similarly named air carriers of the proposed use of the name. Chautauqua, Lynx, and Republic states that it recently

entered into a code share agreement with Frontier Airlines, In c. (“Frontier”), under which it will conduct certain operations using the Frontier Express trade name on behalf of Frontier. Further, the airlines states that Frontier is aware of and c oncurs with its request to register the trade name. M oreover, other than Frontier ’ s code
- share partners previously authorized to use the trade name “Frontier Airlines” we identified no other air carriers using a similar name.

1 Chautauqua, Lynx, and Republic’s certificates were last reissued by Order 2004
- 11
- 1, O rder 2007
- 5
- 13, and Order 2007
- 11
- 27, respectively.2

Since Chautauqua, Lynx, and Republic have complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration of the trade name “ Frontier Express ” by Chautauqua, Lynx, and Republic for immediate use in its operations. Dated at Washington, D.C. , .

TODD M. HOMAN Director Office of Aviation Analysis An electronic version of this document is available on the W orld W ide W eb at : http://www.regulations.gov

.Attachment A

SERVICE LIST FOR CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES, INC., LYNX AVIAT ION, INC., AND REPUBLIC AIRLINES, INC.

MR PATRICK RIZZI HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP COLUBIA SQUARE 555 13 TH STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 20004 MR WILLIAM J WEBER CERTIFICATION SECTION MANAGER FAA AFS
- 900 45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131 DULLES VA 20166 MS LINDA B AKER POI FOR CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES INC FAA INDIANAPOLIS FSD O 1201 COLUMBIA ROAD PLAINFIELD IN 46168 MR PETER LYNCH AGC
- 300 ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW WASHINGTON DC 20591 MR DAVID ENLOW POI FO R REPUBLIC AIRLINES INC FAA INDIANAPOLIS FSDO 1201 COLUMBIA ROAD PLAINFIELD IN 46168 MR BERNARD STANKUS OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION DOT/RITA/BTS RTS
- 42 1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE WASHINGTON DC 20590 MR HAROLD WAYMAN POI FOR LYNX AVIATION INC FAA DENVER ACO 26805 EAST 68 TH AVENUE DENVER CO 80249 MS ANNE SUISSA RTS
- 42 OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION DOT/RITA/BTS E
- 34 1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE WASHINGTON DC 20590
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.138 Quality manual.

Each applicant for or holder of a production certificate must provide a manual describing its quality system to the FAA for approval. The manual must be in the English language and retrievable in a form acceptable to the FAA.
#### SATURN TRADING AND TRANSPORTATION CO., Ltd., Appellant, v. BOSTON METALS CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 8066.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 28, 1960.

Decided May 30, 1960.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore; Roszel C. Thomsen, Judge.

Logan Cresap, New York City (Arthur E. Tarantino and Paul D. Page, Jr., Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellant.

William A. Grimes and Donald N. Rothman, Baltimore, Md. (Gordon, Feinblatt & Rothman, and Ober, Williams, Grimes & Stinson, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAMLEY, sitting by designation of the Chief Justice, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is affirmed upon the findings, conclusions and principles adopted and stated by the District Court, 178 F.Supp. 95.

Affirmed.
§ 17.31 Dismissal or summary decision of contract disputes. ( a ) Any party may request by motion, or the ODRA on its own initiative may recommend or direct, that a contract dispute be dismissed, or that a count or portion thereof be stricken, if: ( 1 ) It was not timely filed;
( 2 ) It was filed by a subcontractor or other person or entity lacking standing;
( 3 ) It fails to state a matter upon which relief may be had; or
( 4 ) It involves a matter not subject to the jurisdiction of the ODRA.
( b ) Any party may request by motion, or the ODRA on its own initiative may recommend or direct, that a summary decision be issued with respect to a contract dispute, or any count or portion thereof if there are no material facts in dispute and a party is entitled to a summary decision as a matter of law.
( c ) In connection with any potential dismissal of a contract dispute, or summary decision, the ODRA will consider any material facts in dispute in a light most favorable to the party against whom the dismissal or summary decision would be entered, and draw all factual inferences in favor of that party.
( d ) At any time, whether pursuant to a motion or on its own initiative and at its discretion, the ODRA may: ( 1 ) Dismiss or strike a count or portion of a contract dispute or enter a partial summary decision;
( 2 ) Recommend to the Administrator that the entire contract dispute be dismissed or that a summary decision be entered; or
( 3 ) With a delegation from the Administrator, dismiss the entire contract dispute or enter a summary decision with respect to the entire contract dispute.
( e ) An order of dismissal of the entire contract dispute or summary decision with respect to the entire contract dispute, issued either by the Administrator or by the ODRA, on the grounds set forth in this section, shall constitute a final agency order. An ODRA order dismissing or striking a count or portion of a contract dispute or entering a partial summary judgment shall not constitute a final agency order, unless and until such ODRA order is incorporated or otherwise adopted in a final agency decision of the Administrator or the Administrator's delegee regarding the remainder of the dispute.
( f ) Prior to recommending or entering either a dismissal or a summary decision, either in whole or in part, the ODRA shall afford all parties against whom the dismissal or summary decision would be entered the opportunity to respond to a proposed dismissal or summary decision.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Arch Chemicals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Louis S. Massimo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is provided
solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Louis S. Massimo   
|Louis S. Massimo       
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 8, 2004       



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arch Chemicals, Inc. and will be retained by Arch Chemicals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CL f\t I /I J_ RECEIVED IN JO ff'hPjl fiCOtyft COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

f FEB 26 2015

&W^^^^^^*1^ T5 ^

-jk*V* Uo^StAcL^^h Ccf^ d>f toy

out (Wl GwvTXe© ^ F^OCU^

.ft. I^OOIXN LpOA Q/LH^, U**& ^-1
\X\

^. y^Jitwi?

""^tO

q^oO BLtSS ^ 3'L Dili'^5^
v--? '•••
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00619-CV

In re Travis County

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and request for sanctions are denied, and

Relator’s motion for temporary relief is dismissed as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin

Filed: November 2, 2017
§ 382.15 Do carriers have to make sure that contractors comply with the requirements of this Part? ( a ) As a carrier, you must make sure that your contractors that provide services to the public (including airports where applicable) meet the requirements of this part that would apply to you if you provided the services yourself.
( b ) As a carrier, you must include an assurance of compliance with this part in your contracts with any contractors that provide services to the public that are subject to the requirements of this part. Noncompliance with this assurance is a material breach of the contract on the contractor's part. ( 1 ) This assurance must commit the contractor to compliance with all applicable provisions of this Part in activities performed on behalf of the carrier.
( 2 ) The assurance must also commit the contractor to implementing directives issued by your CROs under §§ 382.151 through 382.153.
( c ) As a U.S. carrier, you must also include such an assurance of compliance in your contracts or agreements of appointment with U.S. travel agents. You are not required to include such an assurance in contracts with foreign travel agents.
( d ) You remain responsible for your contractors' compliance with this part and for enforcing the assurances in your contracts with them.
( e ) It is not a defense against an enforcement action by the Department under this part that your noncompliance resulted from action or inaction by a contractor.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                                    Amendment

                                       To

            Supplemental Retirement Agreement dated February 28, 1995

Agreement made this 22nd day of June, 1998, by and between SAVINGS BANK OF THE
FINGER LAKES, FSB, Federal Savings Association, having its head office at 470
Exchange Street, Geneva, New York, ("SBFL") and G. Thomas Bowers residing at
1045 Lochland Road, Geneva, New York, 14456 ("Bowers).

WHEREAS, Bowers and SBFL have entered into a Supplemental Retirement Agreement
dated February 28, 1995, and;

WHEREAS, under said Agreement, SBFL agreed to provide certain benefits to Bowers
upon his future retirement from SBFL, and;

WHEREAS, SBFL and Bowers desire to amend said Agreement,

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:

1.    Section One of the Agreement dated February 28, 1995 is hereby amended by
      adding the following thereto:


                                       1
<PAGE>   2

      "Such benefits shall be reduced by an amount equal to six (6) percent of
      total cash value in all Policies subject to any split dollar agreement in
      effect as of the Executive's attainment of age sixty-two (62)."

2.    Paragraph 3 of the Agreement dated February 28, 1995, is hereby deleted.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SBFL has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly
authorized Officers, and Bowers has set his hand to this Agreement as of the
date first written.

                                SAVINGS BANK OF THE FINGER LAKES, FSB


                                By: /s/ Terry L. Hammond
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Terry L. Hammond
                                    Sr. Vice President & Chief Financial Officer


                                    /s/ G. Thomas Bowers
                                    ------------------------------
                                    G. Thomas Bowers


                                       2
632 A.2d 766

#### In the Matter of the Application of PATRICIA C. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland.

Misc. No. 17,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 8, 1993.

M. Albert Figinski, Baltimore, for petitioner.

No argument on behalf of respondent.

Before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ.

*509
      *ORDER*

The Court having considered the adverse recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners dated June 80, 1993, the applicant’s response to the Show Cause Order dated September 3, 1993, and the argument of counsel presented at the hearing held before this Court on November 4, 1993, it is this 8th day of November, 1993

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the adverse recommendation of the State Board of Law Examiners be, and it is hereby, accepted and Patricia C. is denied admission at this time to the Bar of Maryland.

Judge ELDRIDGE would have admitted the applicant.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Jputnam <jputnam@midrivers.com> 

Wednesday, AprillO, 2013 11:31 AM 

EAS (OST) 

EAS service to miles city mt. 

I would urge you to consider the need of air service to miles city. Some ofthe older citizens are unable to drive long 

distances and are basically home bound without a way to travel. Drs and other professionals look at transportation and 

schools as being very important when considering a community. I would hope there would be an option to continue air 

service and improve use.Changing routes or hubs? 

Sent from my iPadh 

1