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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3418 

To amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to apply the 

exceptions process for tiered formulary drugs to specialty tier drugs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2009 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 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 part D of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to apply the exceptions process for tiered formulary 

drugs to specialty tier drugs. 

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 ‘‘Medicare Prescription 

5 Drug Cost Equalization Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3418 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF EXCEPTIONS PROCEDURES FOR 

2 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN TIERED COST3 SHARING STRUCTURE TO SPECIALTY TIERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–4(g)(2) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–104(g)(2)) is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘The 

7 exceptions process under this paragraph shall apply to 

8 drugs included in a tier of a formulary solely for very high 

9 cost and unique items (commonly referred to as a specialty 

10 tier) in the same manner as such process applies to any 

11 other drugs.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of this sec13 tion shall apply to PDP sponsors and MA organizations 

14 for plan years beginning on or after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 10.1(d)****AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, by and among MAPCOExpress, Inc., (“Employer”), Delek US Holdings, Inc. (“Delek US”) and Uzi Yemin (“Employee”),entered into and effective as of May 1, 2004, and amended effective as of September 15, 2005,February 1, 2006 and April 17, 2006 (the “Employment Agreement”), is dated as of November 13, 2006.     WHEREAS, Employee, Employer and Delek US are parties to the Employment Agreement; and     WHEREAS, Employee, Employer and Delek US desire to delete the provision in the EmploymentAgreement granting Employer a right of first refusal in the event that Employee seeks to sell to athird party in a bona fide sale transaction all or any portion of the shares of Delek US commonstock issuable upon the exercise of the share purchase rights granted to Employee pursuant to theAgreement.     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment andintending to be legally bound, Employee, Employer and Delek US agree as follows:     1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the text of Section 4(a)(7) in itsentirety.     2. This Amendment to the Employment Agreement shall have effect as of the date hereof.     3. Except as otherwise provided herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue unchanged andin full force and effect.     4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an originalbut all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.[Signature Page Follows]
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 4 to Employment Agreement asof the date first above written.      MAPCO EXPRESS, INC.    By:                      /s/ Tony McLarty    Name:  Tony McLarty    Title:  V.P. of Human Resources            By:                      /s/ Kent Thomas    Name:  Kent Thomas    Title:  General Counsel         DELEK US HOLDINGS, INC.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Agile Software Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2003
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carolyn V. Aver, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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



|Date: September 15, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Carolyn V. Aver                    
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  | Carolyn V. Aver Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as
part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Agile Software Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act Filing of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectively of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Agile Software Corporation and will be retained by Agile Software Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 339 

To extend the expiration date of coupons issued under the digital television 

converter box program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To extend the expiration date of coupons issued under the 

digital television converter box 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 ‘‘Digital Television Cou5 pon Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUPON EXPIRATION EXTENSION. 

7 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 3005(c)(1)(C) of the Dig8 ital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 

9 (Public Law 109–171; 120 Stat. 23) is amended to read 

10 as follows: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 339 IH

1 ‘‘(C) NO EXPIRATION.—All coupons issued 

2 under this section shall expire at the close of 

3 March 31, 2009.’’. 

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

5 subsection (a) shall apply to any coupon issued under sec6 tion 3005 of the Digital Television Transition and Public 

7 Safety Act of 2005 on or after the date of enactment of 

8 such Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### In re Malcolm McFall BABB, Debtor. Malcolm McFall Babb, Debtor- Appellant, v. James B. Angell, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 11-1122.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2011.

Decided: April 15, 2011.

Malcolm McFall Babb, Appellant Pro Se. James Bigelow Angelí, Howard, Stall-ings, From *&*Hutson, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm McFall Babb appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order approving a compromise agreement and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s determination that Babb lacked standing to appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *In re Babb,*Nos. 7:09-mc-00011-MJH; *35006-03003-8-JRL (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2010 & Jan. 12, 2011). We deny as moot Babb’s motion for a stay of the bankruptcy court’s order pending appeal. 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.*
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/24/2015 9:16:15 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
----

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  SE Global Equities Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Toby Chu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the *Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002*, 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.

| Date: November 12, 2004 | Signed "Toby Chu"      Toby Chu, Chief Executive Officer
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to  SE Global Equities Corp. and will be retained by  SEGlobal Equities Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-QSB.

  |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 99.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Agile Software Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Bryan D. Stolle, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





December 13, 2002





/s/ BRYAN D. STOLLEBryan D. Stolle Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mickey Alexander PETERSON, a.k.a. Mickey Alexander Petersen, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-15351.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 11, 2011.

Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lori M. Beranek, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy R. Saviello, Law Offices of Tim Saviello, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MARTIN, FAY and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mickey Alexander Peterson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to waive the interest imposed on his restitution payment. After oral argument, review of the record, and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

We have determined, and Peterson does not dispute, that the District Judge advised Peterson about the meaning and effect of the appeal waiver at the time he entered his plea of guilty. The plea agreement stated Peterson “voluntarily and expressly waives the right to appeal his sentence ... on any ground, except that the defendant may file a direct appeal if the sentence imposed contains a term of imprisonment in excess of twenty-five (25) years.” Peterson’s plea agreement also stated he agreed to “pay any fine and/or restitution imposed by the Court.” The restitution includes any interest imposed by statute. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3612(f). Therefore, the appeal-waiver provision in Peterson’s plea agreement covers appeals regarding interest payments on restitution.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

         CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the quarterly report of Transition Auto Finance III
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth C. Lowe, the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: April 30, 2005                    /s/ Kenneth C. Lowe
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Kenneth C. Lowe
                                   Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3373 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3373

  To provide for a study relating to the feasibility of using postal 
                    employees as census enumerators.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2009

 Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a study relating to the feasibility of using postal 
                    employees as census enumerators.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) the Bureau of the Census needs an accurate count, based 
        on all households in the United States, to conduct a decennial 
        census;
            (2) the Bureau of the Census spends years and billions of 
        taxpayer dollars to find and then verify where all such 
        households are located;
            (3) the Bureau of the Census relies on part-time 
        enumerators to assist in the constitutionally mandated 
        decennial census; and
            (4) the United States Postal Service has more experience 
        than any other organization in finding and delivering services 
        to all households in the United States, and is thus uniquely 
        positioned to assist the Bureau of the Census to achieve a 
        complete and accurate enumeration of the population.

SEC. 2. STUDY.

    The United States Postal Service shall study and submit a written 
report to the appropriate committees of Congress, by not later than 
January 1, 2012, on the feasibility of using postal employees to serve 
as enumerators in the 2020 decennial census of population.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rosario A. FIORANI, JR., a/k/a Ross A. Fiorani, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher Scott JONES, Debtor-Appellee, and U.S. Trustee; David R. Ruby, Trustees.

No. 13-2186.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 25, 2014.

Decided: March 27, 2014.

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his “Memorandum of Law to Reverse Debt- or’s Discharge on Fraudulent Petition and all Conduct Thereafter.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Fiora-ni’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Fiorani v. Jones,*
      *179No. 4:1 l-cv-00038-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 3, 2013; entered Sept. 6, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2010-1164 ADVANCED MAGNETIC CLOSURES, INC., Plaintiff,

v. ROME FASTENER CORPORATION, ROME FASTENER SALES CORPORATION, ROMAG FASTENERS, INC., and RINGS WIRE, INC., Defendants-Appellees,

v. IRVING BAUER and G. BAUER INC., Movants-Appellants. Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the Southern District of New York in case no. 98-CV- 7766, Judge Paul A. Crotty.

ON MOTION Before RADER, ARCHER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM.

O R D E R Irving Bauer and G. Bauer Inc. (Bauer) mo ve for a stay, pending appeal, of the January 7, 2010 order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying their motion to quash and/or modify subpoenas duces

tecum. The court considers whether B auer’s appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court entered judgment in fa vor of Rome Fastener Corporation et al. (Rome) in the amount of $1,314,816.16. Advanced M agnetic Closures Inc. (AMC) appealed the judgment and that appeal, 2009-1102, is pending. After that appeal was2010-1164 2 filed, Rome served subpoenas ad testific andum and duces tecum on AMC and Bauer. AMC and Bauer moved to quash or modify t he subpoenas, and the district court denied that motion. Bauer appealed the district court’s order denying the motion to quash or modify and now seeks a stay, pending appeal.

In Connaught Labs., Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham P.L.C. , 165 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court ruled that a nonparty could not obtain appellate review of a discovery order through direct appeal of an or der denying a motion to quash. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review such an order. The cour t further stated that relief through a writ of mandamus is also not available in this situation. Rather, the court held, “[n]onparties may se cure review of a discovery order by refusing to comply with it and appealing a consequ ent contempt order.” Id. at 1370. See also In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig. , 22 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 1994) (order allowing postjudgment discovery is not appealable but immediate review may be sought of a contempt order if

individual is held in criminal contempt for disobeying t he previous order requiring production of documents). In this case, Bauer appeals an order denyi ng a motion to quash. Such an order is not appealable. Connaught , 165 F.3d at 1370. Because this court lacks jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (2) The motion is moot. (3) The revised official caption is reflected above.2010-1164 3 FOR THE COURT

January 27, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Gerald Orseck, Esq. Norman H. Zivin, Esq.

s17