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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 774 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 774

  To remove the limitation on Medicaid coverage of tobacco cessation 
                         nonprescription drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2017

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To remove the limitation on Medicaid coverage of tobacco cessation 
                         nonprescription drugs.

    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 ``Medicaid Coverage of Tobacco 
Cessation Nonprescription Drugs Act''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF TOBACCO CESSATION NONPRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

    Section 1927(d)(2)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
8(d)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(F) Nonprescription drugs, except agents approved 
                by the Food and Drug Administration under the over-the-
                counter monograph process for purposes of promoting, 
                and when used to promote, tobacco cessation.''.
                                 <all>
```
585 A.2d 412

#### MIDDLETOWN HOLDING CORP. v. TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 17

- 4764

_____________________________

W ILBERT M OORE , J R

. ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.
February 18, 201 9

P ER C URIAM

.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his 3.850 motion

. We agree with Appellant that the court failed to attach portions of the record that conclusively establish that Appellant is not entitled to relief . W e reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Appellant’s ineffective assistance c laim

, or to attach portions of the record (not merely the State’s response to the motion) that conclusively refute Appellant ’s claims. Morrison v. State , 860 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see Skellie v. State , 849 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 200 3).

R AY , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Wilbert Moore, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General ; Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General ; and Robert Quentin Humphrey, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### In re Lewis B. BLANCHE.

No. 2010-B-2256.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 9, 2010.

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Transfer to Active Status and the Petition for Interim Suspension Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19 filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Lewis B. Blanche, Louisiana Bar Roll number 27383, be and he hereby is reinstated to active status pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 22(G). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19, pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that necessary disciplinary proceedings be instituted in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, §§ 11 and 19.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Bernette J. Johnson Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
WAUTARA D. WRIGHT

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2703

Opinion filed August 11, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Wautara D. Wright, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and MAKAR, JJ.

, CONCUR.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Volunteer Income Tax Issue Committee will be held Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Donna Powers. For more information, please contact Ms. Powers at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 4, 2010.

Shawn F. Collins,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2010-25472 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Unassociated Document


 

    EXHIBIT
10.40

     


    




    


    
      Mr. Jimmy
Taylor

      JT &
Associates, Inc.

      2645
Shumard Oak Dr.

      Braselton
GA, 30517

      


      August
15, 2008

      


      Dear
Jimmy:

      


      This is
to confirm that BioDrain Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) has approved an agreement
between the Company and JT& Associates to issue a warrant to purchase 75,000
shares of the Company’s stock in conjunction with our verbal agreement with you
relating to the search for the Vice President of Sales and Marketing
position.    The warrants will be priced at $.46 per share,
will have a five-year term and will be subject to the Company’s standard Warrant
Agreement, which will be issued to you upon commencement of the candidate’s
employment with the Company.  If this meets with your understanding,
please sign and return to me at your earliest convenience.

      


      Jimmy, we
appreciate your continued support and look forward to working with you in the
future.  Thank you.

      


      Sincerely,

      


      


      
        	
                /s/ Kevin R.
      Davidson

              	
                /s/ Jimmy
      Taylor

              
	
                Kevin
      R. Davidson

              	
                Jimmy
      Taylor

              
	
                President
      & CEO

              	
                JT
      & Associates, Inc.

              


      



    

      BioDrain
Medical, Incorporated

      2060
Centre Pointe Boulevard | Suite 7 | Mendota Heights, Minnesota, USA
55120-1269

      Phone:  +1-651-389-4800
| fax: +1-651-389-4801 | www.biodrainmedical.com
585 A.2d 357

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALBERT CUNNINGHAM AND EVERETT E. CUNNINGHAM.

July 17, 1990.

Leave to appeal granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *344
      *State v. Thomas E. Lund/State v. Michael X. Harrison,*119 *N.J.*35, 573 A.2d 1376 (1990).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15-1431V

Filed: March 7, 2016

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LAURIE J. FERENC, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza (“Flu”) Vaccine; Shoulder

* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); Special

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit (“SPU”)

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Robert P. Goodwin, Walsh Roberts & Grace, Buffalo, NY, for petitioner.

Lara A. Englund, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On November 30, 2015, Laurie J. Ferenc (“petitioner”) filed a petition for 

compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. 

§300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”). Petitioner alleges that as a result 

of receiving an influenza (“flu”) vaccine on September 11, 2013, she suffered an injury 

to her left shoulder. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing 

Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 7, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with 

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”), and that it was caused-infact by the flu vaccine she received on September 11, 2013. Id. at 3. Respondent 

further stated that she did not identify any other causes for petitioner’s SIRVA, and that

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

the records show petitioner has suffered the sequela of this injury for more than six 

months. Id. Therefore, based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all 

legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
## No. AP -77,039

In the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

At Austin



No. 1414421

In the 35 1st Criminal District Court

Of Harris County, Texas





# JEFFREY KEITH PREVOST

Appellant

V.



# THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

IN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

THE STATE OF TEXAS moves for an extension of time within which

to file its appellate brief. In support of its motion, the State submits the

following:

1. Appellant was charged by indictment with the felony offense of

capital murder.

2. The case was tried before a jury who found appellant guilty as

charged.

3. The jury answered the special issues.

4. The trial court assessed punishment at death, in accordance with

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, section 2(g). AP-77,039

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 3/6/2015 1:22:13 PM

Accepted 3/6/2015 1:28:27 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK5. Sentence was entered April 5, 2014

.

6. Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.

7. Appellant’s brief was filed on February 6, 2015

.

8. The State’s appellate brief is due on March 9 , 201 5

.

9. The State seeks an extension of 90 days to file its brief, until June 8

, 2 015

.

10. This is the State’s first request for an extension in this case.

11. The following facts are relied upo n to show good cause for the

requested extension:

i. The appellate record in the present case is voluminous,

consisting of 39 volumes . Appellant brings 10 points of

error on appeal.

ii. The undersigned attorney has filed appellate briefs in th r ee other cases assigned to her, and is respon sible for filing two

additional appellate briefs.

iii. The State’s motion is not for purposes of delay, but so that

justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested

extension until J une 8 , 2015

.

Respectfully submitted,



### /s / Heather A. Hudson

H EATHER A. H UDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

State Bar Number: 24089551CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5, this certifies that on March 6, 2015 , a

copy of the foregoing was sent to the following:

Douglas M. Durham

2800 Post Oak Blvd., S uite 4100

Hous ton, Texas 77002

Tel: (832) 390

- 2252

Fax: (932) 390

- 2350

d urham. doug@yahoo.com



### /s/ Heather A. Hudson

H EATHER A. H UDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755

- 5826

State Bar Number: 24089551

hudson_heather@dao.hctx.net
#### Cullers & Henry v. Britton & Lyon.

(No. 3012.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ *281. Evidence;.exceptions to, must be signed and filed during the term.*No exception made to evidence in the trial court will be considered in the appellate court, unless the same appears in a bill of exceptions or in a statement of facts, duly signed and filed *before*the adjournment of the term of the court at which the trial was had. Exceptions to evidence embraced in a statement of - facts, which was not signed and filed during the term at which the trial was had, will not be considered, although such statement of facts was signed and filed within the time allowed by an order of. the court. [R. R. Co. v. Eddins, 60 Tex. 656; Lockett v. Schurenberg, id. 610.]

§ 282. *Rule in criminal cases different; rules of practice' in supreme court govern.court of appeals in civil, but not always in criminal cases.*In criminal cases, where exceptions to evidence, admitted over objections, are embraced in a statement of facts, such exceptions will be considered, although- the statement of facts was not signed and filed during the term* provided, it was signed and filed within ten days after the adjournment of the court for the term, under a,n order of the court authorizing it. [Keeton v. The State, 10 Tex. Ct. App. 686.] In *213civil cases the court of appeals will follow the rules of practice settled by the supreme court. [R. S. art. 1014.] In criminal cases it is at liberty to adopt its own rules of practice, except as to motions, arguments of counsel, and *certiorari*to complete records. [Rules 74 and 76 for Court of Appeals.]

April 12, 1884.

Exceptions stricken out.
584 A.2d 237

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN C. ADAMS.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 344

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT THOMAS BROWN.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF10-8-000]


Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

October 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 16, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Energy submitted Rate Order No. SEPA-52, approved on an 
interim basis, effective on October 1, 2010; Rate Schedule VA-1-B et 
al. and Replacement-2-A for the sale of power from Southeastern Power 
Administration's Kerr-Philpott System, and under the authority vested 
in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Delegation Order No. 00-
037.00, submitted Rate Schedule VA-1-B et al. and Replacement-2-A for 
confirmation and approval on a final basis, effective October 1, 2010, 
and ending September 30, 2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdbbb8afbeb29391949398ae888d8d928f89bd9b988f9ed39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25508 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUI T

MONEY MAILER, LLC,

Plaintiff

- counter

defendant

- Appellee,

v.
WADE G. BREWER,

Defendant

- counter

- claimant

Appellant,

v.
MONEY MAILER FRANCHISE CORP; et al.,

Counter

- defendants

Appellees. No. 20

- 35896

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 01215

- RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2021 Seattle, Washington

* This disposition is not app ropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUL 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL, ** District Judge

. Wade Brewer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his

counterclaims in Money Mailer, LLC’s favor. We have jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291

. Reviewing de novo, 1 KST Data, Inc. v. DXC Tech. Co. , 980 F.3d 709, 713

(9th Cir. 2020), we affirm.

Brewer does not challenge the district court’s determination that he limited

his relief to restitution. Brewer is only entitled to restitution if Money Mailer was
unjustly enriched by its allegedly illegal conduct. See Ehsani v. McCullough Fam.

P ’ ship , 1 59 P.3d 407, 411 (Wash. 2007). The record reflects that Money Mailer

was not enriched. The undisputed evidence shows that Money Mailer incurred

third

- party costs of over $3.4 million for Brewer’s franchise, while Brewer only

paid Money Mailer a little ov er $2.5 million. What Brewer’s payments were

credited t o does not matter because it does not change the conclusion that Money

Mailer was not enriched

. U nder his election of remedy, Brewer is unable to prove

damages for any of his claims
, including his cl aim under Washington’s Consumer

** The Honorable Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

1 Our review is de novo and not for an abuse of discretion because the appeal is of an order grant ing summary judgment and not of an order denying a motion for equitable relief or an order of restitution. Compare KST Data , 980 F.3d at 713, with Teutscher v. Woodson , 835 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) ; Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard & Winery , LLC , 531 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008)

.3

Protection Act

. The undisputed evidence offered by Money Mailer in support of

the amount that it paid out on behalf of Brewer was sufficient to support th e
proposition that it was not enriched . Brewer failed to contest th at evidence in any

meaningful fashion, despite having an opportunity to do so. Brewer’s argument,
made for the first time in his reply brief, that Carr’s declaration did not explicitly

state that Money Mailer actually paid third parties, is not persuasive. The

argument was waived in any event. See United States v. Gianelli , 543 F.3d 1178,

1184 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008)

. Summary judgment in Money Mailer’s favor was proper

.
AFFIRMED.