alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HAU NGOC NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10004 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 3, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hau Ngoc Nguyen, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hau Ngoc Nguyen has moved *246for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Nguyen has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *246published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Willie FERGUSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00001

- CV

R ESPONSIVE E DUCATION S OLUTIONS , Appellant

V

.

S USAN K

IRSCHNER , I NDIVIDUALLY , AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.K., A
MINOR CHILD , App ellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 393rd District Court

of Denton County ( 20

- 3422

- 393 )
April 22, 2021
Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the tri al court’s order

. We reverse that part of the trial court ’s

order that denies RES ’s p lea to the jurisdiction on A

. K. ’ s § 1983 claim , and we ren der
judgment dismissing the lawsuit for want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ _ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_______________ Chief Ju stice Bonnie Sudderth
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita, Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.



|              |     |                                | 
|------------- | --- | ------------------------------ | 
|April 9, 2013 | By: | /s/ Chloe DiVita               | 
|              |     | Chloe DiVita                   | 
|              |     | Treasurer, Secretary, Director | 
|              |     | and Chief Financial Officer    | 
|              |     | (Principal Financial Officer)  |
Jeremy OWUSU, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4441

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 15, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fabian VAZQUEZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40214 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fabian Vazquez-Perez, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Vazquez-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vazquez-Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
(January 22, 2004)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hughes, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 666]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered September 14, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with several crimes after he and a codefendant allegedly entered the home of the victim, threatened him with a handgun and took $500. Thereafter, he pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in satisfaction of all charges and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced to nine years in prison to be followed by a 21⁄2-year period of postrelease supervision.

Defendant now appeals contending, among other things, that he was coerced into entering the plea and, therefore, his waiver of appeal should not be enforced. Defendant, however, did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, a necessary prerequisite to preserving this claim *(see People v Urbina,*1 AD3d 717, 717 [2003]; *People v Smith,*305 AD2d 853, 854 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 624 [2003]). In any event, even if we were to consider it, the record belies defendant’s assertions of coercion and duress. County Court thoroughly explained to defendant all of the rights affected by a plea of guilty, including the waiver of the right to appeal. Defendant responded that he understood and stated that he was not pressured or forced into entering a plea. He then admitted that, on the date in *737question, he possessed a loaded handgun and intended to use it on the victim. Under the circumstances presented, we find that the plea and waiver were knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered *(see People v Anderson,*304 AD2d 975, 975-976 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 578 [2003]; *People v De Berardinis,*304 AD2d 914, 915 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 580 [2003]).

Given defendant’s voluntary waiver of the right to appeal, he has waived his remaining claims, including his challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v De Berardinis, supra*at 916).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
John F. WOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1537

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

John F. Wood, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Gethers v. State*, 838 So.2d 504, 505 (Fla. 2003) ("[A]bsent the execution of an arrest warrant, a defendant who is in jail in a specific county pursuant to an arrest on one or more charges need not be given credit for time served in that county on charges in another county when the second county has only lodged a detainer against the defendant.").
Isiah TURNER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2950

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 15, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Alyssa SALERNO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1904

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Arthur J. CHRIS-TENSEN, Appellant, v. EARTHLINK SHARED SERVICES, LLC, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
ACCEPTED

07-15-00282-CR

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS

12/21/2015 9:07:46 AM

Vivian Long, Clerk

 FILED IN 7th COURT OF APPEALS AMARILLO, TEXAS 12/21/2015 9:07:46 AM VIVIAN LONG CLERK
Questions for Day of Service Tracking Instrument

1. Project Name:

2. Project Location: 

 Street address

 City, State, Zip

 Virtual Opportunity (participate online from home)

3. Brief Description: 

4. How many volunteers are expected to serve:

5. How many national service participants are expected to serve:

6. How many other attendees are expected:

7. Name(s) of VIP attendees:

8. Names of notable partner(s):

9. When does the opportunity start: [Date and time]

10. When does the opportunity end: [Date and time]

11. Rain date: 

12. Is this a one-time event or is it re-occurring: [yes or no] If re-occurring, how often will it occur: 

[Weekly, Monthly, Semi-annually, Annually]

13. Lead Organization: [Name, Address, phone, e-mail, website]

14. If grantee, then which program: [e.g. ACSN, NCCC, SC-FGs, SC-SCs, SC-RSVP, VISTA]

15. Contact Name, phone and e-mail:

16. Press contact name, phone, and e-mail:

17. Populations expected to be served as beneficiaries: [CNCS populations of interest, e.g. New Americans, 

Older Americans, Rural Residents, Low-income Individuals, Veterans, Faith-based Communities, 

Communities of Color, Native Americans, People with Disabilities, Veterans, Active Military, Military

Families.] 

18. Populations expected to be serving as national service participants: [CNCS populations of interest e.g. 

New Americans, Older Americans, Rural Residents, Low-income Individuals, Veterans, Faith-based 

Communities, Communities of Color, Native Americans, People with Disabilities, Veterans, Active 

Military, Military Families.] 

19. Populations expected to be serving as volunteers: [CNCS populations of interest e.g. New Americans, 

Older Americans, Rural Residents, Low-income Individuals, Veterans, Faith-based Communities, 

Communities of Color, Native Americans, People with Disabilities, Veterans, Active Military, Military

Families.] 

20. Which of these CNCS strategic focus areas best describes this opportunity: [check all that apply]

 Disaster Services

 Economic Opportunity

 Education

 Environmental Stewardship

 Healthy Futures

 Veterans and Military Families

 Capacity Building

21. Relevant attachments/links (such as an event flyer, website, press release, photos):

22. Performance measures:

 Hours of service contributed by community volunteers who were recruited by CNCS-supported 

organizations or national service participants

 Hours of service contributed by community volunteers who were managed by CNCS-supported 

organizations or national service participants
Chris D. PATTON & Roberta Lee Patton, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D15-5645

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 07, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The parties' joint stipulation of dismissal filed on October 26, 2017, is treated as a notice of voluntary dismissal and is accepted. This appeal is dismissed.

Appellants' motion and amended motion to tax attorney's fees are denied as moot.
D.W., Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

D.W., in proper person.

Leslie Hinds, Chief Regional Legal Counsel, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LOGUE and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: Abie WOLF, Debtor Abie Wolf, Appellant v. Judy A. Robbins, As United States Trustee, Appellee

No. 17-50175 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 1, 2017

Abie Wolf, Pro Se

John Postulka, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Executive, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Washington, DC, Kevin Epstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the U.S. Trustee, San Antonio, TX, for Appellee

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Abie Wolf appeals' the district court’s dismissal of his appeal from the decision of a bankruptcy court. The district court dismissed Wolfs appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(a)(2) based on his failure to timely file a brief. Wolf does not address this issue in his briefing before this court.

“Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.” *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting *Price v. Digital Equip. Corp.,*846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988)). Wolf has abandoned any arguments regarding the district court’s dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal by failing to argue them in the body of his brief. *See id.*The district court’s dismissal is, therefore, AFFIRMED. Wolfs motion to supplement is DENIED as moot.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ernesto CALDERON-SILVERA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50275 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ernesto Calderon-Silvera, Pro Se

Before-DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ernesto Calderon-Silvera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Calderon-Silvera has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion-for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4256

___________ Ronnie Patterson, * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States Di strict * Court for the District of Minnesota. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc., a * Minnesota corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant/Appellee, * * Allstate Insurance Company, a foreign * corporation; Jayhawk Acceptance * Corporation, a foreign corporation, * * Defendants. * *

___________ Submitted: June 12, 1998 Filed: June 29, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, ROSS, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District 1 of Minnesota. -2- Ronnie Patterson appeals from the district court's adverse grant of summary 1 judgment and from its denial of his motion to amend his complaint to plead punitiv e damages. Patterson sued Bob Ryan Olds mobile, Inc., claiming violations of the Equal Cred it Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d), the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Retai l In stallment

Sales Act, Minn. Stat. § 168.71(a)(1), and alleging common la w conversio n. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties' submissions, w e conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6356 

To amend the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to prohibit anchoring in certain locations 

of the Hudson River, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Mr. RYAN (for himself and Mr. MOLINARO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 to prohibit 

anchoring in certain locations of the Hudson River, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Hudson River Protec5 tion Act’’. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6356 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANCHORAGES. 

2 Section 8437 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

3 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 

4 (Public Law 116–283) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking subsections (d) and (e); 

6 (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub7 section (d); and 

8 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(c) PROHIBITION.—The Commandant shall prohibit 

11 any vessel anchoring on the reach of the Hudson River 

12 described in subsection (a) unless such anchoring is within 

13 anchorage grounds established before January 1, 2021.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with BILLS
J.S. III, Father of A.P., Minor Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Calvin R. Clyburn, Respondents.

No. 16-1990

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 26, 2017

Paul E. Frampton, Sarah E. Smith, BOWLES RICE LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Maia S. Fisher, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Michelle S. Ger-dano, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Timothy C. MacDonnell, Gabriella E. Al-onso, Student Caseworker, Black Lung Legal Clinic, WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Lexington, Virginia, for Respondents.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Westmoreland Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (2012). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,*No. 15-0331-BLA (B.R.B. June 30, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### LEOSO, Plaintiff v. E. RIPLEY (Neri), Defendant

No. 20-1918

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Lesolo”, part of Land “Legaoa” in Leone]

February 13, 1919

A. M. NOBLE, *Judge of the High Court;*and MOLIOÓ, *Associate Member*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before their Honors A. M. Noble and Molioo, on the 13th day of February, 1919, and it appearing to the Court that the land “LESOLO” is a portion of the land “LEGAOA”, which said land was the subject matter in controversy in that certain case entitled *Toomata v. the People of Leone,*1 A.S.R. 142 (1906), which said case was tried before the High Court of American Samoa on the 4th day of May, 1906.

And it further appearing to the Court from the Judgment rendered in said cause that the plaintiff, Leoso, was adjudged not entitled to any portion of said land.

It is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged that the plaintiff, Leoso, take nothing by this action.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the Court that the costs of this action, viz.; $20.00 be paid by the plaintiff, Leoso.
#### Steven ROLLAKANTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL; William Federick; Andrene Towsen; Johny Niles, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1205

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Steven Rollakanti, Appellant Pro Se. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE DEA-KINS NASH SMOAK *&*STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*161PER CURIAM:

Steven Rollakanti seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Rollakanti seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6161 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow amounts paid for 

over-the-counter naloxone to be taken into account in determining the 

deduction for medical expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. MOLINARO (for himself, Ms. PETTERSEN, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. CAREY, Mr. 

TRONE, and Mr. PAPPAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

amounts paid for over-the-counter naloxone to be taken 

into account in determining the deduction for medical 

expenses. 

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 ‘‘Supporting Access to 

5 Vital and Affordable Care for Everyone Act of 2023’’ or 

6 as the ‘‘SAVE Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6161 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMOUNTS PAID FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER 

2 NALOXONE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETER3 MINING THE DEDUCTION FOR MEDICAL EX4 PENSES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 213(b) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

7 naloxone’’ after ‘‘insulin’’. 

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

9 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

10 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB