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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 44 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 44

 To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to include rural 
emergency hospitals in the definition of a covered entity for purposes 
                   of the 340B drug discount program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

  Mr. Bergman (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to include rural 
emergency hospitals in the definition of a covered entity for purposes 
                   of the 340B drug discount program.

    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 ``Rural 340B Access Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. INCLUDING RURAL EMERGENCY HOSPITALS AS COVERED ENTITIES FOR 
              PURPOSES OF THE 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM.

    Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
256b(a)(4)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(P) An entity that is a rural emergency hospital 
                (as defined in section 1861(kkk)(2) of the Social 
                Security Act) that is owned or operated by a unit of 
                State or local government, is a public or private non-
                profit corporation which is formally granted 
                governmental powers by a unit of State or local 
                government, or is a private non-profit rural emergency 
                hospital which has a contract with a State or local 
                government to provide health care services to low 
                income individuals who are not entitled to benefits 
                under title XVIII of the Social Security Act or 
                eligible for assistance under the State plan under this 
                title.''.
                                 <all>
```
Howard Shane SHAFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of  Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter
ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth E. Compton, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | /s/KENNETH E. COMPTONKenneth E. Compton President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 9,
2008

---



QuickLinks
# C_2021320EN.01003702.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2021 — Mélin v Parliament

(Case T-51/20) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Plea of illegality - Rights of the defence - Error of fact)

(2021/C 320/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Joëlle Mélin (Aubagne, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 December 2019 relating to the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 130 339,35 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and the related debit note of 18 December 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Joëlle Mélin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Joëlle Mélin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.

---
Exhibit 23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in(i) the Registration statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-7070, 333-62708, 333-73878, 333-112670, 333-111448, and 333-105015) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation, (ii) the Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to RegistrationStatement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-70268) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation and (iii) the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-127168) of GlobalSantaFe Corporation of our report dated March 6, 2006relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Houston, Texas 

February 28, 2007
EX PARTE STATE

(In re State v. Caleb Tyler Haywood)

1160934 (CR-16-0309)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Arben CIPI, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and BX Survivor Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D18-1595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying this statement.



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Inc. (Inc.), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



(a) the Form 10-K of Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inc.



/s/ Hugh PaneroHugh Panero President and Chief Executive
Officer March 28, 2005/s/ Joseph J. EuteneuerJoseph J. Euteneuer Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer March 28, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inc. and will be retained by Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017053EN.01002902.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/29

---

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission

(Case T-773/16)

(2017/C 053/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the defendant has infringed Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013) by failing to refer to the applicant’s letters of 1 July 2016 and 16 September 2016 to take the measures provided for in that provision and to send a communication to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant has infringed Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013) by failing to refer to the applicant’s letters of 1 July 2016 and 16 September 2016 to take the measures provided for in that provision and to send a communication to the applicant;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of the principle of reciprocity by the strict application of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of the principle of reciprocity by the strict application of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015

| 1. | Second plea in law, defendant’s failure to act |
| --- | --- |

1.

Second plea in law, defendant’s failure to act

The applicant complains that the Commission has not adopted measures pursuant to Article 1(4)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1).

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

WERNER MICHAEL FISK, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:04-CV-2643-H

) ECF

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal )

Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a Notice of Appeal in the above captioned action in which the District

Court has entered a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Considering the record in this case, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) and

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court hereby DENIES petitioner a certificate of appealability. The Court

hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge, filed on May 19, 2007, that this Court accepted on June 12, 2007,

in support of its finding that petitioner has failed to “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)); 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30 day of July, 2007. th
# C_2019187EN.01002201.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH v Sascha Ledowski

(Case C-681/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 6(1)(k) and Article 16(e) - Distance contract - Right of withdrawal - Exceptions - Concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ - Mattress whose protective seal has been removed by the consumer after delivery)

(2019/C 187/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: slewo — schlafen leben wohnen GmbH

Respondent: Sascha Ledowski

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(e) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that goods such as a mattress, from which the protective film has been removed by the consumer after delivery, do not come within the scope of the concept of ‘sealed goods which are not suitable for return due to health protection or hygiene reasons and which have been unsealed by the consumer after delivery’ within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 89 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 

that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration 

to require that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, 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 ‘‘Prescription Freedom 

5 Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FDA AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PRE7 SCRIPTIONS. 

8 (a) REPEAL.—Effective as of the date that is 6 

9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, subsection 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 89 IH

1 (b) of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos2 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 353) is repealed. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Beginning on the effective date 

4 described in subsection (a), any reference in a Federal 

5 statute, regulation, or guidance— 

6 (1) to prescribing, a prescription, a prescription 

7 drug, or a drug subject to section 503(b) of the Fed8 eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is deemed to be 

9 a reference to prescribing, a prescription, or a pre10 scription drug, respectively, under applicable State 

11 law; and 

12 (2) to any requirement or provision of section 

13 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

14 is deemed to be a reference to the corresponding re15 quirement or provision, if any, in applicable State 

16 law, as determined by the Federal official or officials 

17 responsible for administering the respective Federal 

18 statute, regulation, or guidance. 

19 (c) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

20 and (b), the Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

21 continue to exercise the authority vested by subsection (b) 

22 of section 503 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

23 Act (21 U.S.C. 353), as in effect on the day before the 

24 effective date described in subsection (a), with respect to 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 89 IH

1 any drug that is intended for use in terminating a preg2 nancy. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 34 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 

Agency relating to ‘‘Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2025 

Mrs. HARSHBARGER (for herself and Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Trichloroethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the final rule submitted by the 

4 Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Trichloro5 ethylene (TCE); Regulation Under the Toxic Substances 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 34 IH 

1 Control Act (TSCA)’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 102568 (December 

2 17, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 743
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 744
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 745
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 746
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 747
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02238-BD Document 43 Filed 04/21/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 748
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 100 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 100

To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 
``gig economy'' and small businesses that operate in large part through 
contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to protect the 
``gig economy'' and small businesses that operate in large part through 
contractor services from the threat of costly class action litigation, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Protect the Gig Economy Act of 
2025''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING THE GIG ECONOMY FROM CLASS ACTIONS.

    Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) the claim does not allege the misclassification of 
        employees as independent contractors.''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6908

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RAYMOND CRAIG JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta C. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00199

- LCB

- 2 )

Submitted : April 25, 2023 Decided: April 27, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER , Circuit Judge , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Raymond Craig Johnson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6908 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Raymond Craig Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court ’ s denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir . 2021 ). Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson ’s compassionate release motion. See United States v. Ferguson , 55 F.4th 262, 271 (4th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Johnson , No. 1:15

- cr - 00199

- LCB

- 2 (M.D.N.C. July 26, 2022). 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6908 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 1 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 2 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 3 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 4 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 5 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 6 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 7 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 8 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 9 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 10 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 11 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 12 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 13 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 14 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 15 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 16 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 17 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 18 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 19 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 20 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 21 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 22 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 23 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 24 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 25 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 26 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 27 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 28 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 29 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 30 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 31 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 32 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 33 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 34 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 35 of 36

Case 3:04-cv-02351-N     Document 46      Filed 11/30/2005     Page 36 of 36