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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3710 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3710

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) as durable medical 
           equipment under Medicare, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2013

 Ms. Shea-Porter introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
  of continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGMS) as durable medical 
           equipment under Medicare, 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 ``Medicare CGM Coverage Act''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING SYSTEMS 
              (CGMS) AS DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (DME).

    (a) Effective Date.--Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Such 
term also includes continuous glucose monitoring systems (including a 
transmitter, receiver, sensors, and test strips required for use).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to the implementation of monitoring systems occurring on or after 
January 1, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
O n Jun e 22 , 20 10 , M urphyw as sent enced t o 3 60 m on ths i n p ri son an d fil ed a p ro se 1 n o tice o f a p p e a l. 1 H L D - 146 ( June 2010) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 2695

___________ I N R E : J A M E S M U R PH Y , Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o C i v. N o. 10- cv- 01107)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

J une 30, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, SC I R I C A and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges Fi l ed: J ul y26, 2010

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

Jam es M u rph yp eti ti o n s fo r a w ri t of m an d am u s d ir ec ti n g the D istri ct C o u rt t o r el eas e hi m . Forthe r eas ons bel ow , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on.

I n J ul y2009, M urphyw as convi ct ed of drug tr aff i cki ng char ges . O n M ay 12

24, 2010, M urphyfi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdi s m i s s ed the § 2241 pet i t i on byor derent er ed M ay27th, and M urphyfi l ed a not i ce of appe al w hi ch w as docket ed atN o. 10- 2696. O n J une 9th, M urphyfi l ed hi s m andamus pet i t i on i n w hi ch he r eques t ed thatw e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on. A w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s s h o u ld b e is s u e d o n ly in e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Spor ck v. Pei l , 759 F. 2d 312, 314 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . D et erm i ni ng w hetheran extr aor di naryci r cumst ance exi s t s r equi r es a tw o- parti nqui ry . Fi r s t , i tm us tbe es t abl i s hed thatther e i s no al t ernat i ve r emedyorotheradequa t e means of r el i ef. Second, a pet i t i oner m us tdemonstr at e a c l earand i ndi s put abl e r i ghtt o the r el i ef s ought . K errv. U ni t ed St at es D istri ct C o u rt , 4 2 6 U . S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (19 7 6 ). A w ri t i s n o t a su b sti tute fo r an ap p ea l. In re K ens i ngt on I nt ern. L t d. , 353 F. 3d 211, 219 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . B eca us e M urphycan chal l enge the deni al of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on on appea l , he has otheradequa t e means of re lie f a n d is n o t e n title d to a w ri t o f m a n d a m u s . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d e n yth e p e tit io n . M u rp h y ’s m o tio n to sta yh is cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs i s deni ed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136678 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136678 

 COA: 284521 

Kent CC: 07-009901-FC 

JAMES JUNIOR LUCKETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0915 

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

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

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

###### Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting on October 5, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. 

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

## Wednesday, October 5, 2005—12:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. 

The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the License Renewal Application and associated Safety Evaluation Report (SER) with Open Items related to the License Renewal of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Cayetano Santos (telephone 301/415-7270) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

Michael L. Scott, 

Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. 

[FR Doc. 05-18799 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Jennifer L. McSharry, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 27, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on March 31, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Scott Sprouse be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Sprouse shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Sprouse shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
# C_2009153EN.01000601.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 — Italian Republic v European Parliament

(Joined Cases C-393/07 and C-9/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the credentials of Beniamino Donnici - Member of the European Parliament - Verification of the credentials of a Member of the Parliament - Appointment of a member resulting from the withdrawal of candidates - Articles 6 and 12 of the 1976 Act)

2009/C 153/11

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, R. Adam, Agents, P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) (C-393/07)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (represented by: M. Sanino, G. M. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, avvocati) (C-9/08)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, N. Lorenz, L. Visaggio, Agents, E. Cannizzaro, Professor)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Achille Occhetto (represented by: P. De Caterini and F. Paola, avvocati)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Decision P6_TA-PROV(2007)0209 of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 concerning the verification of Beniamino Donnici’s credentials [2007/2121/(REG)], notified on 28 May 2007 — Member of the European Parliament — Verification of credentials — Appointment of a Member due to the withdrawal of candidates

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision 2007/2121(REG) of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of credentials of Mr Beniamino Donnici; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision 2007/2121(REG) of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of credentials of Mr Beniamino Donnici;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Donnici’s costs and those incurred by the Italian Republic as applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay Mr Donnici’s costs and those incurred by the Italian Republic as applicant;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic as intervener, the Republic of Latvia and Mr Occhetto to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic as intervener, the Republic of Latvia and Mr Occhetto to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
# C_2008301EN.01006105.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/61

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-82/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/105)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
# C_2008209EN.01007002.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/70

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case F-119/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Admissibility - Organisational Chart - Act adversely affecting an official - Change of posting - Change of duties - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Covert penalty - Misuse of powers)

(2008/C 209/128)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart inasmuch as that decision had the effect of reassigning the applicant, at that time head of the ‘Resources’ Unit, to a research position and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006, p. 68.

1

---
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

May 27, 2014 
 Mark Corrigan 

Dear Mark, 
 We are very pleased, in connection with the merger
between Epirus and Zalicus Inc. (to be renamed EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., for purposes herein, the “Company”) to offer you the position as Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). Your appointment is
based on the following terms and conditions: 
 Effective Date: Your appointment is subject to (i) closing of the merger and (ii) approval
by the Board (the later of these dates becomes the Effective Date). You will serve as Chairman of the Board commencing on the Effective Date until the annual meeting for the year in which your term expires or until your successor has been elected
and qualified, subject however, to your prior death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal from office. . 
 Board Compensation: You
will be eligible for a Retainer of $15,000 per in-person Board Meeting ($13,750 if telephonic). Compensation is based on the assumption there will be four (4) general board meetings per year, provided that your final per meeting
compensation will be paid quarterly and adjusted up or down if the number of actual meetings change, including final adjustment for Q4 based on your in-person attendance record during the year. 

Equity Compensation: Under our current equity plan (based on the current pre-merger capitalization), you will be granted an option to purchase
35,000 shares of the Company’s common stock annually starting at the first anniversary of your Effective Date and while you remain Chairman of the Board, the grant will vest quarterly over a one year period and with an exercise price
equal to the market value on your anniversary date. 
 Expenses: The Company will reimburse you for all reasonable travel (up to $12,000 per year)
and other related expenses incurred on behalf of the Company, upon submission by you of appropriate documentation of such expenses. 
 Please sign and
return to me one copy of this letter acknowledging your agreement to serve as Chairman of the Company’s Board under the terms set forth above. 
 Let
me know if you have any questions and we look forward to working with you. 
  

					
	Sincerely,	 		 	
			
	/s/ Amit Munshi	 		 	/s/ Mark Corrigan
			
	Amit Munshi	 		 	Mark Corrigan
EXHIBIT
32.1
  
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Vladimir Fedyunin, in my capacity as President, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
 /s/ Vladimir FedyuninDate:  
      August 18, 2009
                    Vladimir
      Fedyunin
                      President,
      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and
      Director




EXHIBIT
32.2







CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Vladimir Fedyunin, in my capacity as President, Chief Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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







/s/ Vladimir
      FedyuninDate:  
      August 18, 2009
                Vladimir
      Fedyunin
                  President,
      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and
      Director
STATE of North Carolina v. DYMOND JEVON-DEMETRIUS MOORE.

No. 344P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Craig M. Cooley, Cary, Attorney at Law, for Moore, Dymond Jevon-Demetrius.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of October 2015 in this *566matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

No. 230A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 7, 2016

Patrick H. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Meagan I. Kiser, Attorney at Law, Stacy C. Eggers, IV, Attorney at Law, Boone, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Beech Mountain

Charles E. Clement, Attorney at Law, Boone, John J. Korzen, Attorney at Law, for Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

Charles A. Brady, III, Attorney at Law, Boone.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of July 2016 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition in the Alternative filed by Plaintiff on the 5th of July 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of July 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this *395Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40053

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL AGUIRRE-CONTRERAS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. M-94-201 (CR-M-93-184-2)

- - - - - - - - - -

August 24, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel Aguirre-Contreras appeals the denial of his motion

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His arguments that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the Presentence

Report contained erroneous information, and that his base offense

level should not have considered the use of a weapon because he

did not plead guilty to a weapons count, need not be reviewed

because he did not present them to the district court. See

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
No. 95-40053

-2-

 

** Rule 11 addresses three "core concerns": whether the

guilty plea was coerced; whether the defendant understood the

nature of the charges; and whether the defendant understood the

consequences of his plea. See United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d

296, 300 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (direct appeal from guiltyplea conviction).

As to whether his guilty plea was voluntary, relief under 

§ 2255 is reserved for jurisdictional or constitutional issues. 

See United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en

banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 (1992). The formal or

technical failure to follow Fed. Rule Crim. P. 11** is not

grounds for relief under § 2255 unless the alleged error

resulted, inter alia, in a "complete miscarriage of justice" or

in a proceeding "inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of

fair procedure." United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784-

85 (1979).

At his rearraignment, Aguirre-Contreras indicated that he

understood that he faced a minimum sentence of sixty months

imprisonment. Additionally, although "a guilty plea induced by

an unkept bargain is involuntary," and therefore

unconstitutional, United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 553 (5th

Cir. 1993) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 114 U.S. 698 (1994),

Aguirre-Contreras does not suggest that the Government did not

keep its bargain in recommending the low end of the guidelines.

Consequently, he makes no showing that the requisite miscarriage

of justice occurred which would entitle him to relief under 

§ 2255. See Timmreck, 441 U.S. at 784-85.

AFFIRMED.