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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4577 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure equal access 

of Medicare beneficiaries to community pharmacies in underserved areas 

as network pharmacies under Medicare prescription drug coverage, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2014 

Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia (for himself and Mr. WELCH) 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 ensure 

equal access of Medicare beneficiaries to community 

pharmacies in underserved areas as network pharmacies 

under Medicare prescription drug coverage, 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 ‘‘Ensuring Seniors Ac5 cess to Local Pharmacies Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4577 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING ANY WILLING PHARMACY SERVING AN 

2 UNDERSERVED AREA TO BECOME A NET3 WORK PHARMACY UNDER MEDICARE PRE4 SCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4(b)(1)(B) of the 

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–104(b)(1)(B)) is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘DISCOUNTS ALLOWED FOR

9 NETWORK PHARMACIES.—For’’ and inserting the 

10 following: ‘‘DISCOUNTS ALLOWED FOR NETWORK

11 PHARMACIES.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

14 clause: 

15 ‘‘(ii) INCLUSION OF PHARMACIES LO16 CATED IN UNDERSERVED AREAS IN NET17 WORKS.—In the case of a prescription 

18 drug plan that has, in its network of phar19 macies, one or more pharmacies located in 

20 a health professional shortage area (as de21 fined in section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public 

22 Health Service Act), in a medically under23 served area (according to a designation 

24 under section 330(b)(3)(A) of the Public 

25 Health Service Act), or among a medically 

26 underserved population (as defined in such 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4577 IH

1 section 330(b)(3)(A) of such Act), and 

2 that provides a reduction in coinsurance or 

3 copayments described in clause (i) for cov4 ered part D drugs dispensed through such 

5 pharmacies, such plan shall extend to any 

6 pharmacy located in such area or among 

7 such population the option to be an in-net8 work pharmacy with respect to such plan 

9 under terms and conditions (including the 

10 reductions described in clause (i)) com11 parable to those the plan has agreed upon 

12 with other in-network pharmacies located 

13 in such area or among such population.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to plan years beginning on or after 

16 January 1, 2016. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Baruch Fekete, Appellant, v GA Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 52]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), entered June 26, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to quash subpoenas served on its expert witnesses and denied plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to add claims under General Business Law § 349 and for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish special circumstances warranting the depositions of defendant’s expert witnesses (see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]) and the court properly granted defendant’s motion to quash those subpoenas (see, *King Elecs. of Graham Ave. v American Natl. Fire Ins. Co.,*232 AD2d 273; *Generali Ins. Co. v Honeywell, Inc.,*194 AD2d 442).

The court properly denied plaintiffs motion to amend his complaint to assert a claim under General Business Law § 349 and a claim for punitive damages since those claims are plainly lacking in merit. Private contract disputes regarding policy coverage and the processing of a claim that is unique to the parties does not fall within the ambit of General Business Law § 349 *(see, New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 320). Nor would defendant’s alleged conduct, even if established, constitute an independent tort or conduct that is part of a pattern directed at the public generally and, thus, plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages as an element of damages in his breach of contract claim *(see, Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy.,*83 NY2d 603, 613). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0457 In the Matter of, S.G., an Alleged Mentally Ill Person,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until December 1 , 2023 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court October 25 2023

10/25/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0457
# L_2013253EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 253/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 253/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research (DMR) #1203.                    

*Dates and Times:*

October 20, 2005; 7:45 a.m.-6:30 p.m. (open 7:45-12:30, 1:30-5/closed 5-6:30).

October 21, 2005; 8 a.m.-2:30 p.m. (closed).

*Place:*                         University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Thomas P. Rieker, Program Director, Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-4914.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning progress of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.                    

*Agenda:*

October 20, 2005-Open for Directors overview of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.

October 21, 2005-Closed to review and evaluate progress of the Partnership for Research and Education in Materials.

*Reason for Closing:*                         The work being reviewed may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: September 27, 2005.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19933  Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
In the MATTER OF: A.B., C.B., J.B., A.B.

No. COA17-1321

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 19, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey KLINE, Respondent.

No. 4D03-171.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 20, 2003.

John J. Copelan, Jr., Deborah Guller and Douglas Greenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender, and Diane M. Cuddihy, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Children and Family Services’s petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the commitment order under review is quashed. *See Dep’t of Children & Families v. Harrison,*848 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Joseph Burton MIAL

17P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Jospeh Burton Mial, for Mial, Joseph Burton

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*600The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of January 2018 by Defendant for Preparation of Stenographic Transcript:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
DLD-189 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 13-1688

___________

IN RE: MICHAEL EVAN KEELING,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. Nos. 2:09-cv-04015, 2:11-cv-05304, and 2:12-cv-06764) 

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 11, 2013

Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 9, 2013)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Michael Evan Keeling petitions for a writ of mandamus, requesting that we order the 

District Court to “entertain” his filings in three different matters. He complains that the 

District Court refused to do so when it dismissed his cases for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. See Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 

(1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “used . . . 

only „to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel 
2

it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.‟” Id. (citations omitted). Mandamus is 

not a substitute for appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) 

(citations omitted); Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). 

By his phrasing, Keeling tries to suggest that the District Court refused to consider 

filings that were properly before it. However, that is simply not the case. A review of the 

relevant court records reveals that the District Court did, in fact, entertain his filings. Although 

Keeling disagrees with the result in those cases, his disagreement is a matter for appeal, not for 

mandamus relief. We will deny his petition.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
Sican Corp.
Elkhart, Indiana

We have audited the balance sheet of Sican Corp. as of March 31,
1998, and the related statements of income and accumulated deficit and cash
flows for the year then ended (which do not appear herein).  Those financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of Sican Corp. as of March 31,
1998, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then
ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.




                                    Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Elkhart, Indiana
May 12, 1998
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,487-01

EX PARTE EVENDER GENE JACKSON, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. WRIT 09127 IN THE 196TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HUNT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Jackson v. State, 487 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016).

In a single ground, Applicant contends that his appellate counsel failed to timely notify him 

that his conviction had been affirmed.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these
2

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. The trial court may use any means set

out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent him at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether appellate

counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The trial court shall also

make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the

disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: March 22, 2017

Do not publish
In the MATTER OF the ESTATE OF Brett Sewell COOKE

No. COA17-948

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

DISMISSED.
HARRIS v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

110A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 22, 2017

Tamika L. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department Of Public Safety.

Michael C. Byrne, Attorney at Law, for Harris, Steven.

Norris Arden Adams, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, E. Hardy Lewis, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Fraternal Order of Police, et al.

J. Michael McGuinness, Attorney at Law, Elizabethtown, Megan Ashley Milliken, Attorney at Law, for Southern States Police Benevolent Association, et al.

Ryan Park, Deputy Solicitor General.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of June 2017 by Petitioner:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of December 2017."
In the MATTER OF: I.J.A., I.R.A., Minor Children.

No. COA17-845

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY JENNINGS BRAWLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-90-394, CA-94-509-3-6-AK)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Eric Golden, GOLDEN, MEIZLISH & ELWOOD CO., L.P.A., Columbus,

Ohio, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion to convert this appeal to a formal briefing track

and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Brawley, No. CR-90-394; CA-94-509-3-6-AK (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Official Journal C 342/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.342.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 342 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5316 December 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.342.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 342

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5316 December 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2010/C 342/01 | Report on the annual accounts of the Artemis Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking | 1 |
| 2010/C 342/02 | Report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking | 7 |
| 2010/C 342/03 | Report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking | 15 |
| 2010/C 342/04 | Report on the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking | 22 |
| 2010/C 342/05 | Report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking | 30 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2010/C 342/01

Report on the annual accounts of the Artemis Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

1

2010/C 342/02

Report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

7

2010/C 342/03

Report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

15

2010/C 342/04

Report on the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

22

2010/C 342/05

Report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2009, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

30

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Christopher Allen Neighbors, * From the 161st District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. B-22-0103-CR.

Vs. No. 11-22-00329-CR * May 9, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1311

ELIZABETH ANN EL KASSEMY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

TELVISTA, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00018-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 29, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Elizabeth Ann El Kassemy, Appellant Pro Se. Agnis Chandra 

Chakravorty, Frank Kenneth Friedman, WOODS ROGERS, PLC, Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Elizabeth Ann El Kassemy appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. El Kassemy v. Telvista, Inc., No. 4:08-cv-00018-jlk-mfu 

(W.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
STATE v. Brad Cayton NORWOOD

21P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 19, 2018

Daniel Lawrence Spiegel, Appellate Defender, for Norwood, Brad Cayton.

Matthew Liles, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of January 2018."