alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Tracking Number 2010-03-13 (SC-Ol) 


Interaction with the Joint Program SateJlite System (JPSS) 


NASA Advisory Council Recommendation: 


The Council recommends that appropriate forums be established that will facilitate the 


development ofan integrated observing space-based strategy for both research and operational 


National Satellite Systems. 


NASA Response: . 


NASA concurs with the assertion that having appropriate forums for facilitating the 


development ofan integrated observing space-based strategy for both research and operational 


National Satellite Systems is important. In fact, these forums already exist. For example, the 


Director ofthe Earth Science Division (ESD) has recently been appointed Vice Chair ofthe 


U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in charge ofdeveloping a national 

Integrated Observation Strategy, which combines satellite and in situ measurements and 

involves the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), as well as other agencies. These USGCRP activities are being developed in 

close consultation with the Office ofScience and Technology Policy and in coordination with 

the overall USGCRP Strategic Planning activities. ESD's explicit participation in USGCRP 

and Vice Chainnanship for Integrated Observations prOVIdes the appropriate forums for 

planning. In addition, NASA participates actively in the U.S. Group on Earth Observations and 

the international Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). In fact, the Director of 

ESD is the present Vice Chair and incoming Chair [1112011] ofthe CEOS Strategic 

Implementation Team. Furthermore, bilateral agency-level interactions occur regularly in 

forums such as Joint Working Group Meetings between NASA ESD and NOAA's National 

Environmental Satellite, Data, and Infonnation Service and quarterly meetings between ESD 

. and USGS. 

Enclosure 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Bernard G. Kustra, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03529-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8610 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 1
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 217

To reinstate felony penalties for licensed gun dealers who fail to maintain 

records of sales. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23, 2003

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To reinstate felony penalties for licensed gun dealers who 

fail to maintain records of sales.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF CRIMINAL FELONY PEN4 ALTIES FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS 

5 OF FIREARMS SALES. 

6 Section 924(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘one year’’ and inserting ‘‘5 years’’.

Æ
#### S. W. Walters Et. Al. *v*Moses Preston.

Land — Vacant—Previous Entry — Inchoate Title — Subsequent Entry Void.

Where a warrant for vacant and unappropriated land has been granted and an entry made in the surveyor’s book describing same, the warrantee has an inchoate title, which is not destroyed by his neglect to carry it into grant, but on the contrary is protected from subsequent entry by statute.

Same — Legal Title.

Where a patent is not obtained within the time designated by law, the only legal consequence is that the legal title enures from the date of the patent instead of relating back to the date of the survey.

*130APPEAL PROM JOHNSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 27, 1867

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams :

William M. Smithold, having obtained a land office warrant, assigned it to appellee, who caused it to be located and surveyed on 50 acres of land in Johnson county, January 7, 1835, but has never carried it into patent.

Appellants obtained a warrant and had it located and surveyed upon the land in contest August 14, 1861, and patented August 22, 1862. The question is as to these conflicting claims.

Chapter 102 of our Revised Statutes and the various amendatory acts, 2 Stant, Rev. Stat., 430, governs the case.

It authorizes the county court to grant warrants for.vacant and unappropriated lands, on payment of such price as they may determine not less than five cents per acre, and then authorize the person obtaining the warrant to have the same entered in the surveyor’s book, describing the.same, it is also made the surveyor’s duty to survey such entries in the order in which they may stand on his book.

Sub-division 8 of section 3 provides that none but vacant lands shall be subject to appropriation, and declares void every entry, survey or patent made or issued so far as it embraces land *previously entered, surveyed or patented.*Appellant had had the land both entered and surveyed, which were of record, and any person desiring to appropriate it had ample means of ascertaining the fact.

As was said by this court in Fleppin v. Hays et. al., 3 Met., 215, appellee had an inchoate title which was not destroyed by his neglect to carry it into grant, but, on the contrary, was protected from subsequent entry by, provision declaring after entry, survey or patent void.

If he did not get the patent within the time designated by law the only legal consequence would be his legal title enured to him only from the date of the patent instead of. relating back to the date of the survey as he would have had he got it within the time designated by the statute.

The entry, survey and patent of appellants being absolutely *131void, so far as conflicting with appelle’s survey, there is no valid reason for reversing the judgment, hence it is affirmed.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR /.ND ISSOCI.TI LDIIYIIT~IIDTtl 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

- 

I 

I 

I 

GEORGE C MARSHALL 

SPACE FLIGHT CENTER 

""NIIYILLE a/* "OYITON ifi CPEFNBELT *o 

I 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 

EXECUTIVE 

ORGANIZATION SECRETARIAT 

CONSULTANTS , AND MANAGEMENT TX:CYTIVI IEC~~~ART 

OFFICER 

STAFF ASS'TS 

AIlallTE *UYINlS,RI.TDP 

I I I I I i 

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF SPECIAL CONIRACTS T~~~~~~~~~ 

IADmRAnm 1 I I~~~~~~~ 1 I NEG:;;;tN 1 I I I 1 u~~~~~y I AWT Ao*,*lln~*,O- IWT 'LO*,UI~III"IOI r-ilT .,,X,N,rTllnT"* "WT IDYINI~TPITOR AIIT *D*,YIS,"I,OP 

JOHN F. KENNEDY 

SPACE CENTER 

rr .Na" IFACE C:Nlr7 r 1 

- r-LOFFICE OF OFFICE OF I NATI ACADEMY' 

k~ LNENEE CN 9 

PROGRAM PLANS POLICY OF SCIENCES I 

AND ANALYSIS I NAT'L ACADEMY I lis., *Y*INIXTRITDR Air' .OY,IIITL.ATUE 

, I I I I I 

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF I 1 I 1 /"TE:~~~~N~~l 1 ligiE I 1 y:!iF 1 A5I.T *D*,Nllir)*TDli A5I.T II)"INl5l**IOP AS, I""I,N,ITPATOC GENERAL CoWIIL AIPT *D*IN,II'*TOC 

LABORATORV 

I ?.IP'C.OS ,sr..Tr-, 

OFFICE OF 

MANNED 

SPAC€ FLIGHT 

~IIOCIATE IOIINIST'ATDII 

1 

OFFICE OF 

ADVANCED RESEARCH 

OFFICE OF OFFICE OF 

SPACE SCIENCE TRACKING AND 

AND APPLICATIONS DATA ACQUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY 

*IIYC,ATI <n~,w,s,e*ro" IDO'IITE I3YINIIIe"TIP *srCC,ITF IO*IN6,DITOI 

WALLOPS STATION I., .I 

111 

*OFF -? FFLC <*L,F z3r.131 CILii 

RESEARCH CENTER RESEARCH CENTER 

ELECTRONICS 

RESEARCH CENTER
#### Thomas J. Gorin et al v. James D. Smith.

Warehouse-Maxi — Absence of Instructions — Unforseen Emergency.

A warehouse man, in the absence of any direct instructions, by the consignor, may exercise his own discretion and in eases of unforseen emergncv may act contrary to general instructions provided he acts in good faith.

APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

May 26, 1868.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

Whether or not Ronald, the warehouse-man, to whom the tobacco was consigned was expressly authorized by Smith, the planter, to sell it, is a question perhaps not necessarily involved in the determination of this controversy; he was certainly bound to follow the lawful instructions of Smith, and in the absence of any direct instructions the weight of authority seems to be that he may exercise his own discretion; but in cases of unforeseen emergency the consignee may act contrary to general instructions, when those instructions are manifestly applicable to ordinary circumstances only, as if he acts in good faith and with *376reasonable diligence' he will be protected. *Story on Agency*78, 113, 225.

Underwood, Rodman, *for appellant.*

*Barnett*& Edwards, *for appellee.*

Ronald in his evidence states he has no recollection of having received any instructions from Smith on the subject of the sale of the tobacco, and says two reasons influenced him in making the sale. *First.*The price which he received for it he regarded as a very good one. Secnd, he had no room in his warehouse to store it, on account of the large quantity of tobacco then on hand, from which it must appear he might lawfully sell.

From the language of the order which is the best evidence of what the real transaction between the parties in relation to Smith’s tobacco, i t is to be understood that he sold it to Gorin or to him, and his partner, and as it was not contemplated by either of the parties that the tobacco was to be removed, but understood it was to remain with Ronald until it was sold, the direction was to pay the proceeds over to T. J. Gorin.

The instructions in this view of the case asked by appellants were in conflict with the opinion of this court in the case between these parties 2 *Duvall*155, and the instruction given for appellee conforms thereto.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary information extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         981
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  499,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    360,105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               938,031
<PP&E>                                         737,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,682,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,883,128
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    268
<COMMON>                                       420
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,734,280)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,682,495
<SALES>                                        2,126,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,126,661
<CGS>                                          1,705,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,920,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,526,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,526,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,526,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.36)
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Linda Brown,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03769-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9351 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending January 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

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

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

|        | /s/ ROBERT  H. BARGHAUS                    |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | April 12, 2006                        |

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and notfor any other purpose.

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Financial Management","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PgVNAo4d8Y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/financial-management\/\">Financial Management<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/financial-management\/embed\/#?secret=PgVNAo4d8Y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Financial Management” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PgVNAo4d8Y\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/nssc-financial-management.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tina Kennedy,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04586-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Law Offices of Ben C Martin, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 12/12/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: December 20, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9525 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9525 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 2, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 126562(78) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

BETTY SORKOWITZ, Individually and as Trustee Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices for the MORRIS & SARAH FRIEDMAN 

IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Betty Sorkowitz, 

Trustee for the SARAH FRIEDMAN TRUST, 

Betty Sorkowitz, Personal Representative for the 

ESTATE OF SARAH FRIEDMAN, BETMAR 

CHARITABLE FOUNDATION, INC., JULIE 

SHIFFMAN, JANET JACOBS, CAROLYN 

JACOBS, RENEE JACOBS, JODIE SHIFFMAN 

and JEFFREY SHIFFMAN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 126562 
 v COA: 242016 
 Oakland CC: 01-037192-NO 

LAKRITZ, WISSBRUN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 

a/k/a LAKRITZ, WISSBURN & ASSOCIATES,

P.C., GERALD LAKRTIZ and KENNETH

WISSBRUN, a/k/a KENNETH WISSBURN,

Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of the order of 

November 28, 2005 is considered and it is DENIED because it does not appear the order 

was entered erroneously. 

KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration and reinstate the decision of the 

Court of Appeals for reasons stated in her dissent. 

MARKMAN, J., would grant reconsideration and reinstate the Court of 

Appeals decision. 

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. 

February 2, 2006 

Clerk
#### MILON v. DUKE UNIV.

No. 549A01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 609

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals denied 8 November 2001. Conditional petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 8 November 2001.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2234

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure that prescription 

drug card sponsors pass along discounts to beneficiaries under the medicare prescription drug discount card and transitional assistance program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2004

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. REED, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. 

KOHL, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. GRAHAM of Florida, Mr. REID, 

and Mr. DODD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

that prescription drug card sponsors pass along discounts 

to beneficiaries under the medicare prescription drug discount card and transitional assistance program.

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 ‘‘Drug Discount Card 

5 Improvement Act of 2004’’. 
2

•S 2234 IS 

1 SEC. 2. ENSURING THAT PRESCRIPTION DRUG CARD SPON2 SORS PASS ALONG DISCOUNTS TO BENE3 FICIARIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–31(e)(1)(A)(ii) of 

5 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–

6 141(e)(1)(A)(ii)), as added by section 101 of the Medicare 

7 Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act 

8 of 2003 (Public Law 108–173; 117 Stat. 2071), is amend9 ed by striking ‘‘take into account’’ and inserting ‘‘reflect 

10 at least 90 percent of all’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact13 ment of section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 

14 Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 

15 108–173; 117 Stat. 2066).

Æ