alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# TOYOBO SPECIALTIES (USA) INC. 39555 Orchard Hill PL STE230, Novi, MI 48375 Phone: (248) 449-3323 / Fax: (248) 449-3324 E-mail: fushimi@toyobosp.com

The Honorable Ray LaHood United States DepartmentofTransportation CONTROL NO 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE

.Washington, DC 20590
.

Dear Secretary LaHood: OnbehalfofTOYOBO SPECIALTIES (usA) INC, I am writing to express our strong support for the applicationofDelta Air Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our business ties with Japarthas created demand**forincrease(h:~apacity** to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying intoTokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans·pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would dearly**b~nefit'our** business**trav~lers.·** Thankyou for consideration ofthis request.
Willis A. REDDICK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
EX PARTE Wallace RIVERS

CR-16-0431

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 3, 2017 Reh. denied April 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
#### In the Matter of Azizza Hoover, Appellant, v Alan Derry, as Superintendent of the New Paltz Central School District, et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 914]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered October 21, 2002 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Following Supreme Court’s dismissal of this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction due to petitioner’s failure to comply with CPLR 304, petitioner moved pursuant to CPLR 2221 (a) to “modify” the order, requesting reinstatement of the proceeding nunc pro tunc principally on grounds of law office failure. Supreme Court denied the motion, characterizing it as one for reargument. Petitioner appeals from this order.

The motion to “modify” the prior order clearly sought to convince Supreme Court that its original determination was incorrect, and was properly considered one to reargue *(see Carota v Wu,*284 AD2d 614, 617 [2001]). It is well settled that an order denying a motion to reargue is not appealable *(see Davis v Evan,*304 AD2d 1023, 1026 n [2003]; *Ault v Richman,*299 AD2d 613, 615 [2002]; *Patterson v Palmieri,*284 AD2d 852, 852 [2001]; *Flax v Standard Sec. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*150 AD2d 894, 895 [1989]).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
#### Miguel Garcia REYNOSO, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

No. 16-2206

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 23, 2017

Filed: March 8, 2017

Chinedu I. Igbokwe, Emeka J. Igbokwe, Banwo & Igbokwe Law Firm, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Edward ,C-Durant, John Beadle Holt, Trial Attorney, Carl H. McIntyre, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Oil Oil, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to Serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Miguel Garcia Rey-noso petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) to deny withholding of removal.2 After careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379, 381-82 (8th Cir. 2013). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. Reynoso does not challenge the IJ’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture, or the IJ’s denial of his asylum application as untimely; thus, those rulings are not before us. See Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950, 954 n.2 (8th Cir. 2008).
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
E. Thomas, Chairman, President and Chief 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:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.


/s/ Michael E. Thomas
------------------------------------
Michael E. Thomas
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
August 2, 2004


/s/ Frank T. Kane
-------------------------------
Frank T. Kane
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
August 2, 2004


     This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document or for any other purpose.
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 R.G. BARRY CORPORATION 
 13405 Yarmouth Road, N.W. 

Pickerington, Ohio 43147 

January 31, 2012 
 Mr. Greg Tunney

 President and Chief Executive Officer 

R.G. Barry Corporation 
 13405 Yarmouth Road,
N.W. 
 Pickerington, Ohio 43147 
 Re: Amendment of Employment Agreement  
 Dear Greg: 

Reference is made hereby to your Employment Agreement with R.G. Barry Corporation (the “Company”) dated May 1, 2009
(the “Employment Agreement”). 
 We have agreed to amend Section 2 of the Employment Agreement to read as
follows, effective upon the signing of this letter by you: 
 Section 2. Employment Term 

With respect to the Executive’s position as Chief Executive Officer and President, the Executive’s initial term of employment
under this Agreement shall begin on May 1, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) and shall end on the third anniversary thereof, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5. Following the initial Employment Term, the
Employment Term shall automatically renew for additional one-year periods unless terminated pursuant to Section 5 or unless either party gives the other forty-five (45) days prior written notice of its intent not to renew. The initial term
and any renewal thereof are collectively referred to as the “Employment Term.” 







 If you are in agreement with the amendment to Section 2 of the Employment Agreement
set forth above, please so indicate your agreement by signing and returning a copy of this letter to Janice Page, Chair of the Company’s Compensation Committee. Such amendment shall be effective upon your signing and returning this letter to
Ms. Page. 
  

							
		 		 	 Very truly yours,

R.G. Barry Corporation

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Janice Page

		 		 		 	Janice Page, Chair of the Compensation Committee
		 		 		 	

 Agreed to and Accepted: 
  

	
	
	/s/ Greg Tunney
	Greg Tunney

 Date: 01/31/12
Frank Everette ROWE v. STATE

CR-15-1498

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
#### Mark BOWERS Plaintiff-Appellant v. David A. MULLEN, MD, ERDCC; John Williams, MD, MECC; Karl Hardman, RN BN Health Service Administrator Defendants T. Bredeman, Medical Director of Corizon Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3926

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 28, 2017

Filed: July 6, 2017

Mark Bowers, Pro Se

Jessica L. Liss, Amy J. White, Jackson & Lewis, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Former Missouri prisoner Mark Bowers appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm. Specifically, we find that neither the denial of a requested orthopedic evaluation, nor the delay in reviewing a subsequent request for evaluation, constituted deliberate indifference to Bowers’s serious medical needs. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 342 (8th Cir. 2011); Meuir v. Greene Cty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (8th Cir. 2007) (physicians are free to exercise independent medical judgment); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (mere disagreement, even between physicians, over proper course of treatment is not actionable under Eighth Amendment).

*326Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:00pm EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (Reuters)

- The top U.S. environmental

regulator will propose early next year twice

- delayed rules on

greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, she told the

energyNOW television show.

"I can't tell you what the regulations say right now, but

what we are planning to do is release them early next calendar

year," Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency

administrator, told the program in a segment seen by Reuters

that is to be bro adcast over the weekend.

The EPA in June delayed the proposed rules on power plants,

which are the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,

saying it needed more time after talking with businesses,

states and green groups. It delayed them again in September.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have waged a

war on EPA clean

- air regulations, saying such rules will kill

jobs and add costs to businesses suffering in a battered

economy.

In September, President Barack Obama directed th e EPA to

delay a major rule on smog

- forming pollutants until 2013,

forcing Jackson to embrace a George W. Bush

- era smog rule she

previously described as legally indefensible.

The move led some environmentalists and health groups to

worry the administra tion would subject other clean

- air rules to

long delays.

But earlier this month, the EPA sent the planned rules on

carbon emissions from new power plants to the White House's

Office of Management and Budget for review, a process that can

take about 90 days.

The rules could force big coal

- burning utilities, including

Southern Co and American Electric Power , to use

more natural gas, which is lower in carbon emissions, or to

invest more in wind and solar power.

Jackson has said the agency's coming slate of clean

- air

rules can add jobs in technology to deal with smokestack

emissions.

Lobbyists for utilities, however, say there is no

affordable technology yet that can be bolted on to power plants

to cut greenho use gases.

A process to bury carbon dioxide emissions underground,

known as carbon capture and sequestration or CCS, has been

suggested as a way to help utilities cut emissions in coming

years.

But Jackson, whose agency looked at CCS as it develope d the

rules, said the technology has a long way to go. "It can be

years, maybe a decade or more, until we have the technology

available at commercial scale," she said.

Cheaper options exist to cut emissions, she said.

"It would be shortsighted, or you would have to have

blinders on, not to look at the fact that there are other

game

- changers out there like our nation's supply of natural gas

that are going to be important as people look at where they

want to make investment decisions," she said.

L obbyists for the power industry say energy markets, not

the EPA, should push utilities toward natural gas, adding that

the chemical industry is also eyeing new natural gas supplies,

which could eventually push up prices for the fuel.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Rocketinfo, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/Maria C. Maz
                                 ----------------------
                                 Maria C. Maz
                                 Chief Financial Officer

February 20, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6230 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6230

 To prohibit group health plans, health insurance issuers, and Federal 
 health care programs from applying prior authorization requirements, 
   utilization management techniques, and medical necessity reviews.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2023

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit group health plans, health insurance issuers, and Federal 
 health care programs from applying prior authorization requirements, 
   utilization management techniques, and medical necessity reviews.

    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 ``Doctor Knows Best Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING PRIOR AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS, UTILIZATION 
              MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, AND MEDICAL NECESSITY REVIEWS.

    (a) Private Insurers.--Subpart II of part A of title XXVII of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11 et seq.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 2730. PROHIBITION ON PRIOR AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS, 
              UTILIZATION MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES, AND MEDICAL NECESSITY 
              REVIEWS.

    ``A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group 
or individual health insurance coverage, may not impose any prior 
authorization requirement, any utilization management technique 
(including any step therapy or fail-first protocol), or any medical 
necessity review on any item or service for which benefits are 
available under such plan or coverage.''.
    (b) Federal Health Care Programs.--Beginning January 1, 2024, a 
Federal health care program (as defined in section 1128B of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b) and the health program established 
under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including a State or 
any entity carrying out such Federal health care program or health 
program, may not impose any prior authorization requirement, any 
utilization management technique (including any step therapy or fail-
first protocol), or any medical necessity review on any item or service 
for which benefits are available under Federal health care program or 
health program (as applicable).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ricardo Figueroa LEMUS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71063

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

*271Mary Elizabeth Hawkins, Attorney, Hawkins Law Group PLLC, Shoreline, WA, for Petitioner

Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.

*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ricardo Figueroa Lemus, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Figueroa Lemus’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s final decision, *see 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Figueroa Lemus failed to demonstrate materially changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 991-92 (BIA did not abuse its discretion where petitioner failed to introduce material evidence); *see also Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 965-66 (9th Cir. 2002) (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner did not establish prima facie eligibility for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Order entered October 23,2013

In The 

## Court ofgppeate $ tftfj ©tetrtct of Cexa* at ©allaa No. 05-13-01196-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.H., A CHILD 

### On Appealfrom the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 93-2714-Y ORDER 

### WeDENY appellant'sSeptember 5, 2013 motion to abateor staythe appeal.

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
Patrick MCDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit





 



[NAME]
MARCH 15, 2018
RESTRICTED UNITS  
AWARD LETTER
The Compensation and Management Succession Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has awarded you:
______ Restricted Units 
Date of Grant: March 15, 2018
These Restricted Units were awarded pursuant to the Protective Life Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and are subject to the terms and conditions contained in the 2018 Restricted Units Award Provisions (“Provisions”), as set forth in Appendix A to this Award Letter, and the Plan. The Plan and the Provisions contain terms and conditions regarding the vesting of these Restricted Units, termination of employment, tax withholding, non-solicitation of Company employees and customers, regulatory compliance and other matters, and I encourage you to read the Provisions carefully.
Please retain these documents in your personal records.
                        
Richard J. Bielen
President and Chief Executive Officer of Protective Life Corporation
#### Tyrone YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-30601

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 2, 2017

Tyrone Young, Pro Se

Before OWEN, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tyrone Young, Louisiana prisoner # 110405, appeals following the district court’s transfer of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application to this court, and its subsequent denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion wherein he challenged the court’s transfer order. Because the district court did not enter a final order disposing of the merits of Young’s request for habeas relief in this case, a certificate of appealability (COA) is not required for his appeal. *See United States v. Fulton,*780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). We review the denial of Young’s motion for an abuse of discretion. *See Rocha v. Thaler,*619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010).

Young argues that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA), which established requirements for habeas corpus proceedings as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244, applies only in capital habeas proceedings, and thus is inapplicable in his non-capital case. It is well established that the AEDPA applies to “all ha-beas corpus proceedings in the federal courts” filed after its enactment, even those submitted by individuals convicted of noncapital offenses. *Lindh v. Murphy,*521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (applying the AEDPA to non-capital case). Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been shown. IT IS ORDERED that a COA is DENIED as unnecessary and that the transfer order of the district court is AFFIRMED. *See Fulton,*780 F.3d at 689. Young’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

*

 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. Edgar Rene Mier GARCES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50858 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

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

Edgar Rene Mier Garces, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edgar Rene Mier Garces 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). Mier Garces 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 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.