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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2123 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish non-formulary drugs 

and medicines to veterans diagnosed with mental health disorders, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. JONES, Mrs. 

ELLMERS of North Carolina, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. TONKO, 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. DOLD, 

Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia, and Ms. GABBARD) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to furnish nonformulary drugs and medicines to veterans diagnosed 

with mental health disorders, 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 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘Enhancing Veterans’ Access to Treatment Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2123 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FURNISHING 

2 OF NON-FORMULARY DRUGS AND MEDICINES 

3 TO VETERANS WITH MENTAL HEALTH DIS4 ORDERS. 

5 (a) AVAILABILITY OF NON-FORMULARY DRUGS AND

6 MEDICINES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

7 in the case of a veteran who is enrolled in the patient en8 rollment system under section 1705 of title 38, United 

9 States Code, who a duly licensed physician, including a 

10 Department of Defense physician, has determined is tak11 ing or has taken during the 90-day period preceding the 

12 date of such determination, a prescribed drug or medicine 

13 that has been effective in treating a mental health disorder 

14 with which the veteran has been diagnosed, the Secretary 

15 of Veterans Affairs shall take such steps as may be nec16 essary to furnish such drug or medicine to such veteran 

17 if the prescription is ordered by a duly licensed physician, 

18 regardless of whether such drug or medicine is available 

19 under the formulary in use by the Department of Veterans 

20 Affairs. 

21 (b) VA CAPACITY TO DISPENSE CERTAIN NON-FOR22 MULARY DRUGS AND MEDICINES.—The Secretary of Vet23 erans Affairs shall revise the prescription medication for24 mulary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure 

25 that all medications within the classes of antipsychotics 

26 and antidepressants that are prescribed by Department of 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2123 IH

1 Defense physicians, including such medications prescribed 

2 for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, trau3 matic brain injury, schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar 

4 disorder, are available at all Department of Veterans Af5 fairs pharmacies. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Emeil KAMEL, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.

No. 05-55584.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2007.

Filed April 20, 2007.

Allione *&*Associates, Laguna Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.

*798Before: T.G. NELSON and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Emeil Kamel appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Equilon Enterprises, LLC, on Kamel’s Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”) claims. Kamel also appeals the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As a threshold matter, we grant in part and deny in part Kamel’s motion for judicial notice. Parties may not modify the record on appeal unless something material is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident.1 We will take judicial notice of the 1999 memorandum of this court.2 We decline to take judicial notice of the remaining documents.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Kamel, a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude3 that Equilon either failed to act in good faith, or to offer Kamel a valid right of first refusal in 2003.4

The district court did not abuse its discretion5 when it refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kamel’s state law claims.6

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. *See*Fed. R.App. Proc. 10(e)(2).

2

. *See*9th. Cir. R. 36—3(b)(i).

3

. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477*U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (stating that summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law).

4

. *See*15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(E)(iii)(I) & (b)(3)(D)(iii)(I) & (II) (requiring the franchisor to either make "a bona fide offer to sell, transfer or assign” its interest in the premises to the franchisee, or, where applicable, "offer the franchisee a right of first refusal” on any third party offer received); *see also*15 U.S.C. § 2802(b)(2)(E) & (b)(3)(D) (stating that the franchisor may only terminate or elect not to renew "in good faith and the normal course of business”).

5

. *See San Pedro Hotel Co. v. City of Los Angeles,*159 F.3d 470, 478 (9th Cir.1998) (stating that the court "review[s] the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for an abuse of discretion”).

6

. *Id.*(stating that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses jurisdiction for one of the reasons stated in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(l)-(3), even if it does not "provide reasons to support its conclusion”).
# C_2006146EN.01000701.xml

| 22.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/7

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation No. 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2006/C 146/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

GERMANY

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation No. 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ing. Robert Baumann Luftfahrtgesellschaft m.b.H. | 9073 Klagenfurt-Viktring |
| Georg-Buchergasse 4 |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

Ing. Robert Baumann Luftfahrtgesellschaft m.b.H.

9073 Klagenfurt-Viktring

Georg-Buchergasse 4

passengers, mail, cargo

10.5.2006

DENMARK

Operating licences granted

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation No. 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FlexFlight ApS | FlexFlight ApS |
| Lufthavnsvej 50 |
| DK-4000 Roskilde |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

FlexFlight ApS

FlexFlight ApS

Lufthavnsvej 50

DK-4000 Roskilde

passengers, mail, cargo

9.6.2006

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005

2

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIANO IXCOY-ITZEP, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71146 

Agency No. A070-567-757 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Victoriano Ixcoy-Itzep, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) 

that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala and 

thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71146 

factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We 

deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Ixcoy-Itzep does not challenge the IJ’s determination 

that he failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution on account of a 

protected ground. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Ixcoy-Itzep failed 

to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or 

acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia, 

828 F.3d at 836-37.

Ixcoy-Itzep’s opposed motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 5) is 

denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal will terminate upon issuance of 

the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Anonymous, for Admission to Practice as an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Appellant.

Submitted March 12, 2007;

decided April 3, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.

Chief Judge Kaye taking no part.
Exhibit 99.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James S. Osterman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowlege:

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

     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by Blount
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date: May 15, 2003

/s/ James S. Osterman
------------------------------------
James S. Osterman
President and
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Ronald Green, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Determination annulled, on the law, and petition granted *(see, mem in Matter ofLahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923 [decided herewith]). All concur, except Balio, J., who dissents and votes to confirm the determination *(see, dissenting mem in Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923, 924-926 [decided herewith], *supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
MONTANA 

Peter N. Karvelis has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana 

pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Comrnission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Karvelis has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Peter N. Karvelis may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 41-day of September, 2022. 

Chief rustice 
LA

m/2

#3 

d4 M 4.1... 

Justices
SCEC-22-0000707

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

________________________________________________________________

J. NOELANI AHIA, SHAYNE NAMEAAEA HOSHINO, KACI-CHEREE DIZON, 

SHAWN-CHRISTIAN DIZON, CODY NEMET, FAY MCFARLANE, NORRIS 

MCFARLANE, JADE CHIHARA, KEVIN BLOCK, OLIVIA NGUYEN, TRINETTE 

FURTADO, KEISA LIU, CAROL LEE KAMEKONA, EMILIE VINCENT, LAURA 

JOHNSON, HARRY JOHNSON, SARA TEKULA, RENA BLUMBERG, MAYA 

MARQUEZ, JASON MEDINA, STACEY MONIZ, CHRISTY KAHOOHANOHANO, 

REAGAN KAHOOHANOHANO, ZION EBBERSON, RAUL GOODNESS, TERRILL 

JAMES KANE ALII WILLIAMS, LORI SIERRA KNIGHT, GRETCHEN 

LEISENRING, JONATH PADILLA, ALENA ORNELLAS, and 

SANDRA IMBERI IOAKIMI, Plaintiffs,

vs.

ALICE L. LEE, KATHY L. KAOHU, County Clerk, County of Maui, and 

SCOTT T. NAGO, Chief Elections Office, State of Hawaiʻi, 

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Eddins, JJ.;

and Wilson, J., dissenting)

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ January 30, 2023 

motion for reconsideration of the January 20, 2023 Findings of 

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment, and the record in this 

matter, this court has not overlooked or misapprehended points 

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCEC-22-0000707

08-FEB-2023

11:26 AM

Dkt. 87 ODMR
2

of law or fact. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 

40(b). Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion for 

reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 8, 2023.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins
# C_2009050EN.01000601.xml

| 3.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5414 — Samsung SDI/Samsung Electronics/SMD)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 50/04)

On 23 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5414. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5414. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Hand Brand Distribution, Inc. (the
"Company"), I, Steven M. Grubner, Chief Financial Officer (the "Registrant"), do
hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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 of 1934, as amended; and

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

      Date: March 31, 2005

      By: /s/ Steven M. Grubner
      -------------------------
      Steven M. Grubner
      Chief Financial Officer
#### MARKEY, Appellant, v. QUEENS COUNTY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 27, 1896.)

Action by Kate Markey, as administratrix of the goods, chattels, and credits of Hugh Markey, deceased, against the county of Queens, impleaded, etc.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to appeal to the court of appeals. All concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19631]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-897]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Aurobindo Pharma 
USA, Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. has applied to be registered as an 
importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 13, 
2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before October 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on July 20, 2021, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., 6 Wheeling 
Road, Dayton, New Jersey 08810-1526, applied to be registered as an 
importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remifentanil...........................     9739  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The company plans to import Remifentanil (9739) in bulk form for 
research and development. No other activity for this drug code is 
authorized for this registration.
    Approval of permit applications will occur only when the 
registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized 
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import 
of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished 
dosage forms for commercial sale.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-19631 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 168 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 168

   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                                 Idaho.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

 Mr. Simpson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                                 Idaho.

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

SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
district of Idaho.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--In order that the table 
contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, will 
reflect the change in the number of judgeships authorized by subsection 
(a), such table is amended by striking the item relating to Idaho and 
inserting the following:

``Idaho....................................................         3''.
 

                                 <all>
```
#### Frank Fraeyman et al., Appellants, v MSR Development, Ltd., Respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order has been dismissed, since the right to separately appeal therefrom was extinguished upon the entry of the judgment *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment.

*700Special Term properly granted the motion of the defendant builder and seller for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The contract entered into by the parties provided that in the event of a default by the plaintiffs purchasers, the seller would be entitled to keep any funds paid pursuant to the contract. Despite the purchasers’ contentions to the contrary, we are in agreement with Special Term that the two letters exchanged between the parties did not modify the contract.

When the provisions of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the interpretation thereof is a question of law, and effect must be given to the parties’ expressed intent *(see, Bethlehem Steel Co. v Turner Constr. Co.,*2 NY2d 456). Since there is no genuine dispute with respect to the plaintiffs’ default, Special Term properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint *(see, Mader v Mader,*101 AD2d 881). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.