alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2553 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

health plans and pharmacy benefit managers from restricting pharmacies from informing individuals regarding the prices for certain drugs and biologicals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2553 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Know the Lowest Price 

3 Act of 2018’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMATION 

5 ON DRUG PRICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4 of the Social 

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–104) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(m) PROHIBITION ON LIMITING CERTAIN INFORMA10 TION ON DRUG PRICES.—A PDP sponsor and a Medicare 

11 Advantage organization shall ensure that each prescrip12 tion drug plan or MA–PD plan offered by the sponsor or 

13 organization does not restrict a pharmacy that dispenses 

14 a prescription drug or biological from informing, nor pe15 nalize such pharmacy for informing, an enrollee in such 

16 plan of any differential between the negotiated price of, 

17 or copayment or coinsurance for, the drug or biological 

18 to the enrollee under the plan and a lower price the indi19 vidual would pay for the drug or biological if the enrollee 

20 obtained the drug without using any health insurance cov21 erage.’’. 
3 

†S 2553 ES

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to plan years beginning on or 

3 after January 1, 2020. 

Passed the Senate September 4, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2553 

AN ACT 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 

and biologicals. individuals regarding the prices for certain drugs agers from restricting pharmacies from informing prohibit health plans and pharmacy benefit man-
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

November 02, 2007

Mr. Michael David Springer

#1296395 

Ramsey I Unit Trusty Camp

1100 FM 6500

Rosharon, TX 77583

Mr. Patrick Gordon Barkman

13th North Main Street

PO Box 1063

Cleburne, TX 76033

RE:Case Number:  06-0382

Court of Appeals Number:  10-06-00040-CV

Trial Court Number:  D200500062

Style:MICHAEL DAVID SPRINGER

v.

LISA FERGASON SPRINGER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0382Page 1**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6974

In Re: DARRELL L. PADGETT, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Nos. 1:07-cv-00068; 1:06-cv-00724; 1:91-cr-00166) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrell L. Padgett, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darrell L. Padgett petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to act on his pending Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions. He also seeks a reduction in his criminal sentence. We conclude that Padgett is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A reduction of Padgett’s sentence is not available by way of mandamus. In addition, we find no unreasonable delay in the district court’s proceedings. Accordingly, we grant Padgett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Hollings C. Renton, Chairman of the Board, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), and Gregory W. Schafer, VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of hisknowledge:**1.** The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and**2.** The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Reportand results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.Dated: May 9, 2007         /s/ Hollings C. Renton   Hollings C. Renton   Chairman of the Board, President
*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. 97-20444

Summary Calendar

_____________________

WALTER D. CARMICHAEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ARAMCO SERVICES COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-3853)

_______________________________________________________

March 19, 1998

Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. That court

thoroughly considered and discussed the evidence Carmichael offered

to resist summary judgment. We agree with the order of February

20, 1997. There is no evidence that ASC’s reduction of workforce

was subterfuge. The reference to age in Sultz’s deposition was

made in discussion of the earlier reclassification decision and, as
2

explained, had no probative weight. Vellozzi’s memorandum was not

written with knowledge of the later reduction in force. And the

list of employees over 50 presents no evidence of discrimination.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         972,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               60,611,894
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   1,097,923,524
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,815,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,148,077,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       243,158
<OTHER-SE>                                 530,371,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,148,077,920
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,777,527
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,140,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,344,568
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,094,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,094,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,094,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
1

Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn

Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:00 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad

Subject: EPA redlined sections per OMB EO 12866 comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-

AQ86)

Attachments: EO 12866_Tier 3 2060-AQ86 FRM Sec VIII_20140222.doc; EO12866_Tier 3 2060_AQ86 

FRM_Ch_6_20140222.doc; EO12866_Tier 3 2060-AQ86 FRM Ch 8_20140222.doc; 

EO12866_Tier 3 2060-AQ86 FRM Sec I_III_20140222.doc

Chad, as you requested, I am attaching the actual redlined files of preamble and RIA that contain the changes noted in 

our response on Feb. 18. 

The changes are located in sections I, II, and VIII of the preamble and Chapters 6 and 8 of the RIA. 

Please let me know if you have any questions 

From: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:19 PM 

To: Whiteman, Chad 

Cc: Margo_schwab@omb.eop.gov

Subject: EPA Response to round 2 EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) 

Chad, our response to the “round 2” comments are attached. 

The “round 2” comments are located in sections I.C, II, and VIII. We have responded to the “OMB2” comment bubbles 

within those comment bubbles. We created new comment bubbles to respond to the text edits. (As a result, the 

numbering of the comment bubbles has changed from your original document.) 

This document contains our responses only to the “round 2” comments. The one exception is our response to the 

comment bubble in section XII.A (labeled A33 in the first round of comments; it is now A84). That response was still 

pending in EPA’s 2/17 document that responded to the first round of comments. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Jim asked me to send this directly to Margo, but I’m only guessing at her address. Will you please forward? Thanks so 

much. 

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 11:49 AM 

To: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Cc: Sutton, Tia; Yanca, Catherine 

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) - round 2 

Kathryn, 

 Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). The second round of 

comments were inserted in the document that I forwarded on Thursday (2/13) so this document has all comments that 

we’ve submitted to date on the preamble (not counting the summary comment document). The new comments can be 

identified with (1) comment bubbles starting with OMB2 and (2) comments found in section VIII (pages 434-451). 

Regards, 

Chad 
2

From: Whiteman, Chad 

Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:45 AM 

To: Sargeant, Kathryn (sargeant.kathryn@epa.gov) 

Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86) 

Kathryn, 

 Attached are some of the EO 12866 comments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86). 

Regards, 

Chad
|    |                                                                                                                            |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 Electronic Arts Inc. for the periods presented therein. |

|                           |
|---------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ Blake Jorgensen       |
| Blake Jorgensen           |
| Executive Vice President, |
| Chief Financial Officer   |
| Electronic Arts Inc.      |
|                      |
| May 24, 2017              |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES 1901.3, : NO: 682

1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, :

1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 1915.7, : CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES

1915.15, 1915.17, 1920.13, 1920.15, :

1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1, : DOCKET

1930.6, 1953, and 1959 OF THE :

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL :

PROCEDURE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of June, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Domestic 

Relations Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted without 

publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rules 1901.3, 1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, 1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 

1915.7, 1915.15, 1915.17, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 1930.1, 

1930.6, 1953, and 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are amended in 

the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on July 1, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-24-00385-CV

Carol G. LANGE,

Appellant

v.

Antonio GUZMAN, Jr. and Belinda Patricia Guzman,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. CVW2100725

Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. We order 

appellant to pay the costs of this appeal.

SIGNED July 10, 2024.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
```
EXHIBIT 21
```

```
                SUBSIDIARIES OF JONES APPAREL GROUP, INC.

                                                   State or County
Name                                               of Incorporation
-----------------------------------------------    ----------------

Jones Apparel Group USA, Inc.	                   Pennsylvania
Melru Corporation                                  New Jersey
Jones Apparel Group Canada Inc.                    Canada
Jones Investment Co. Inc.                          Delaware
Jones Apparel Group Holdings, Inc.                 Delaware
Jones Holding Corp.                                Delaware
Jones Management Service Company                   Delaware
Jones Factor Company                               Delaware
Jones International Limited                        Hong Kong
Camisas de Juarez S.A. de C.V.                     Mexico
Sun Apparel, Inc.                                  Delaware
Sun Apparel of Delaware, Inc.                      Delaware
Lone Star Selling Group, Inc.                      New York
R.L. Management, Inc.                              Delaware
Import Technology of Texas, Inc.                   Texas
Sun Apparel of Texas, Ltd.                         Texas
Maquilas Pami, S.A. de C.V.                        Mexico
CNC West Division Mexico, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico
Greater Durango, S. de R.L. de C.V.                Mexico
Manufacturera Sun Apparel, S. de R.L. de C.V.      Mexico
Nine West Group Inc.                               Delaware
Nine West Boot Corporation                         Delaware
Nine West Development Corporation                  Delaware
Nine West Distribution Corporation                 Delaware
Nine West Footwear Corporation                     Delaware
Nine West Funding Corporation                      Delaware
Nine West Manufacturing Corporation                Delaware
Nine West Manufacturing II Corporation             Delaware
The Shops for Pappagallo, Inc.                     Ohio
Nine West Canada Corporation                       Canada
Conca Del Sol International                        Cayman Islands
Nine West - Honduras                               Cayman Islands
Nine West Accessories (HK) Limited                 Hong Kong
Nine West Melbourne Pty Ltd                        Australia
Nine West Servicos de Assessoria de Compras Ltda.  Brazil
Nine West Group Italy S.r.l.                       Italy
Compania de Calzados de Exportacion, S.L.          Spain
Victoria + Co Ltd.                                 Rhode Island
The Napier Co. Ltd.                                Delaware
Apparel Testing Services, Inc.                     New Jersey
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50484 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANGEL ORTIZ, a/k/a Chaeto, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-83(2)

- - - - - - - - - - April 15, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Angel Ortiz pleaded guilty to count 1 of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and has appealed his sentence. The Government contends that the appeal should be dismissed because Ortiz waived his statutory appellate rights in his plea agreement with the Government. Ortiz argues that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary because his sentence had not yet been determined at the time he entered hisNo. 96-50484 - 2 - guilty plea. The district court determined that Ortiz understood that he had a right to appeal his sentence and that he was waiving that right by entering a guilty plea under the terms of the plea agreement with the Government. No objection was raised and there is no reason to believe that Ortiz did not know what he was doing. See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). The appeal is frivolous and is
DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COM. EX REL. KENNETH HOLMES,

Petitioner

v.

PRESIDENT JUDGE SHEILA WOODSSKIPPER, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 77 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2017 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2017

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that over-the-
   road bus drivers are covered under the maximum hours requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2017

 Mr. Casey (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Mr. Franken, and 
 Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide that over-the-
   road bus drivers are covered under the maximum hours requirements.

    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 ``Driver Fatigue Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

    Section 13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(b)(1)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
``, except a driver of an `over-the-road bus' characterized by an 
elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

d0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

141768-9(50) 

MARY CIPRIANO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ 

Cross-Appellee, 

v SC: 141768-9 

 COA: 291377, 292806 

 Macomb CC: 91-004641-DO 

SALVATORE CIPRIANO, 

Defendant-Appellee/ 

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 6, 2011 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

C.J.,

 Respondent

 v.

S.J.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 286 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
### Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________ Project No.: 0172.07.005.50 7 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 9/23 /2010 Time: 2:00 p.m.

Company Name: South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SC DHEC) regarding Mohawk

Industries Oak River Plant (SC0001996) Contact Name: Melinda Vickers, SC DHEC

Phone No.: (803) 898

- 4186

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group , Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT : Mohawk I ndustries’ 2008 Toxaphene Discharges



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I called the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on September 23,

2010 at 2:00 pm to contact Melinda Vickers regarding the 2008 toxaphene dischar ges from the Mohawk

Industries Oak River Plant. I asked Ms. Vickers about the toxpahene reporting limit in the facility’s permit. Ms.

Vickers stated that the Mohawk Oak Rivers Plant is required to monitor for toxaphene because recent water

quality data rep orted toxaphene and detectable concentrations. She stated that the facility must monitor

toxaphene to determine if a limit is necessary.