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

From: confedd@intergate.com [mailto:confedd@intergate.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:00 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

bill galli 

16 parker st. 

n.adams, MA 01247
Robichaud circa April 15: Oregon planning to put out a fact sheet re their intent re dealing with 

the decision. Don=t plan to issue any permits. Will issue some sort of order sanctioning 

application of herbicide. Asked irrigaters to come up with conditions. Intend to public notice it; 

may not hold. Looking at long term policy options: general permit, rule changes, UA analysis 

04/13/01: Robichaud said he would fax me a proposed aquatic pesticide strategy that 

Washington is working on. [Called back and said he couldn=t b/c it=s atty. client Asking 

Oregon for more background about why they can issue orders. Neither state has variance 

provision. He can send me a section that is about 6 pages that decribes how they have been 

dealing with applicators over the last few years using short term mods.. Out Monday, can send 

Tuesday.
#### Milton Leo MALLORY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14023.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 13, 1958.

Decided June 19, 1958.

Mr. E. Lewis Ferrell, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Thurman L. Dodson, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court) was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher and Thomas A. Flannery, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time record was filed, also entered appearances for appellee.

Before Wilbur K. Miller and Bazelon, Circuit Judges, and Madden, Judge, United States Court of Claims.*

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 291(a), Title 28 U.S. Code.

PER CURIAM.

On March 31, 1958, 104 U.S.App.D.C. -, 259 F.2d 796, a division of this court composed of Judges Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller and Bazelon, with the latter dissenting, filed an opinion denying appellant’s motion to remand to the United States District Court for further consideration under Andrew Mallory v. United States,1 and dissolving a previous rule to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated because of that opinion by the Supreme Court. An or-^er ^at e®ec* was entered,

The ease has been briefed and argued on the merits and is before the present slightly different panel of judges for de-cisión. The essential arguments for reversal now presented were considered by the previous panel and decided by it adversely to appellant,

We are agreed that the opinion of March 31, 1958, is dispositive of the *802merits here. It is an informal but generally accepted rule of this court that a recent opinion of a division may not be overruled by another panel of judges, but only by the full bench. Because of that rule, the present division could not overturn the decision of the previous panel, even if it were disposed to do so.

Affirmed.

1

. 1957, 354 U.S. 449, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18773]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 37

RIN 3038-AD18

Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution 
Facilities; Correction

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of June 4, 2013 (78 FR 
33476). The final rule applies to the registration and operation of a 
new type of regulated entity named a swap execution facility, and 
implements provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act.

DATES: The effective date of this correction is August 5, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amir Zaidi, Special Counsel, Division 
of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three 
Lafayette Center, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; 202-418-
6770; azaidi@cftc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2013-12242 appearing on page 
33476 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, June 4, 2013, the following 
corrections are made:

Sec.  37.702  [Corrected]

    1. On page 33591, in the second column, in Sec.  37.702 General 
financial integrity, paragraph (b) is corrected to read as follows:
    (b) For transactions cleared by a derivatives clearing 
organization:
    (1) By ensuring that the swap execution facility has the capacity 
to route transactions to the derivatives clearing organization in a 
manner acceptable to the derivatives clearing organization for purposes 
of clearing; and
    (2) By coordinating with each derivatives clearing organization to 
which it submits transactions for clearing, in the development of rules 
and procedures to facilitate prompt and efficient transaction 
processing in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  39.12(b)(7) of 
this chapter.

Appendix B to Part 37--Guidance on, and Acceptable Practices in, 
Compliance With Core Principles [Corrected]

    2. On page 33600, in the second column, under the heading Core 
Principle 3 of Section 5h of the Act--Swaps Not Readily Susceptible to 
Manipulation, in paragraph (a)(3), correct the reference to ``section 
c(5)'' to read ``section c(4).''

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-18773 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
#### Oscar Waring, *Respondent, v.*Frances A. Waring, *Appellant.*

Judgment modified by striking out the part awarding costs against defendant, and as modified affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party. Opinion by

Pratt, J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
§ 130.105 Purpose and general format. ( a ) Each railroad subject to this subpart must prepare and submit a plan, including resources and procedures, for responding, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, and to a substantial threat of such a discharge, of oil. The plan must use and be consistent with the core principle of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) including the utilization of the Incident Command System (ICS).
( b ) Each response plan must be formatted to include: ( 1 ) *Core plan.* Response plans with more than one response zone must include a core plan containing an information summary required by § 130.120 and information that does not change between different response zones; and
( 2 ) *Response zone appendix or appendices.* For each response zone included in the response plan, the response plan must include a response zone appendix that provides the information summary required by § 130.120 and any additional information that differs between response zones or is not included in the core plan. In addition, each response zone appendix must identify all of the following: ( i ) A description of the response zone, including county(s) and state(s);
( ii ) A list of route sections contained in the response zone, identified by railroad milepost or other identifier;
( iii ) Identification of environmentally sensitive or significant areas per route section as determined by § 130.115; and
( iv ) The location from which the Oil Spill Removal Organization will deploy, and the location and description of the response equipment required by § 130.130(c)(6).
( c ) To meet the requirements of the response plan as required by § 130.100, a railroad may submit an applicable Annex(es) of an Integrated Contingency Plan (ICP). The Annex(es) must meet the minimum requirements of a Federal response plan required under this part. Guidance on the ICP is available from the National Response Team (*http://www.NRT.org*).
( d ) To meet the requirements of the response plan as required by § 130.100, a railroad may submit a response plan that complies with a State law or regulation. The state plan must meet the minimum requirements of a Federal response plan required under this part and must include all of the following: ( 1 ) An information summary as required by § 130.120;
( 2 ) A list of the names or titles and 24-hour telephone numbers of the qualified individual(s) and at least one alternate qualified individual(s); and
( 3 ) A certification and documentation that that railroad has identified and secured, through contract or other approved means, the private personnel and equipment necessary to respond to a worst-case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta

Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 7
Federal Reserve Bank of: Chicago

## Filings received during the week ending February 15, 2014

|Filer             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                                
|----------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|CNB CORPORATION   | CIC           | Rick A. Tromble and Michele L. Tromble, individually and as trustees of the Rick A. Tromble Revocable Living Trust and the Michele L. Tromble Revocable Living Trust, both of Cheboygan, Michigan, to acquire ten 
percent or more of the outstanding voting stock and thereby control of CNB Corporation, Cheboygan, Michigan. CNB Corporation controls Citizens National Bank of Cheboygan, a national banking association, also of Cheboygan, Michigan. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:        | Not available
|Federal Register: | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location          | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|BANK MIDWEST, SPIRIT LAKE, IOWA | 45551  | 09/16/2013 | 02/07/2014     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|DEMOTTE ST BK, DEMOTTE, INDIANA | 539340 | 10/21/2013 | 02/01/2014     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|JOHNSON BK, RACINE, WISCONSIN   | 58243  | 02/04/2013 | 02/05/2014     | S         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta

Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Mary J. Adsit, *v.*Thomas W. Hall and others.

— Motion to dismiss denied, with ten dollars costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Chase Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2009 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certificate is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Date:
November 12, 2009

/s/ PETER R. CHASE Peter R. Chase Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 18, 1995 (96), Para 96.19 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.96.19  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. ZIMMER:

       Page 94, after line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 318. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used (1) to demolish the bridge between Jersey City, New 
     Jersey, and Ellis Island; or (2) to prevent pedestrian use of 
     such bridge, when it is made known to the Federal official 
     having authority to obligate or expend such funds that such 
     pedestrian use is consistent with generally accepted safety 
     standards.

It was decided in the

Yeas

230

affirmative

Nays

196
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6518

GLADSTONE NEYSMITH, a/k/a Fitzroy G. Blake,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.

(CA-96-706)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gladstone Neysmith, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberley Ann Whittle,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Neysmith v. Angelone, No. CA-96-706

(E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
EPA Response to OMB EO12866 Interagency Review Comments on 

E012866AircraftEmissions2060A070NPRMrule20110120

March 25, 2011

Redline/Strikeout 

on or beginning 

on Page #

Section 

Reference Comment

74 III.B.2.a. The annual report on exempt spare engines goes to EPA only. Same revision for new exemptions on p. 90

76 III.B.2.b. No new tracking system is contemplated for exempted spare engines.

80 III.B.2.b.ii.

Rationale for why EPA is different from ETM guidance relative to 75 per type certificate holder versus 75 per type 

certificate, respectively, and how the EPA position was developed. 

91 III.B.2.b.iii. Exemption requests go only to FAA and FAA will share with EPA.

98 III.B.2.c. Voluntary emission offsets is solely an EPA program.

101 III.C. Describes derivative engines using ICAO and FAA terminology.

102 III.C.

EPA rationale for codifying the ETM guidance language on derivative engine emission decision criteria, and that 

FAA has flexibility to adjust the criteria based on good engineering judgment. 

106 III.D.

The annual production report goes to EPA only. Footnotes expand on this and also describe why FAA is 

encumbered from providing much of the information to EPA.

131 IV.C. Revised table to improve description of Armed Services aircraft 

135 V.

Explains why no economic analysis prepared and adds there is some limited benefit to manufacturers to codify 

emission ICAO standards. Similar discussion added to IX.A. 

137 V. Makes production report burden and cost estimate more overt. Similar addition to IX.A.

151 IX.E. Revised E.O. 13132 content
-----Original Message----- 

From: ilakeiper@comcast.net [mailto:ilakeiper@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:18 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

ila keiper 

691 Sierra Vista Ave #1 

mt view, CA 94043
§ 178.33b-4 Duties of inspector. ( a ) To inspect material and completed containers and witness tests, and to reject defective materials or containers.
( b ) [Reserved]
[74 FR 2268, Jan. 14, 2009]
98-980.

#### State v. Campbell.

Franklin C.P. No. 97CR042020. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of execution,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that appellant’s motion for stay of execution be, and hereby is, granted, pending disposition of this appeal.
§ 1152.2 Definitions. Unless otherwise provided in the text of the regulations, the following definitions apply in this part: ( a ) *Account* means an account in the Board's Uniform System of Accounts for Railroad Companies (49 CFR part 1201).
( b ) *Act* means the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803), as amended.
( c ) *Base year* means the latest 12-month period, ending no earlier than 6 months prior to the filing of the abandonment or discontinuance application, for which data have been collected at the branch level as prescribed in § 1152.30(b).
( d ) *Board* means the Surface Transportation Board.
( e ) *Branch* means a segment of line for which an application for abandonment or discontinuance, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10903, has been filed.
( f ) *Carrier* means a railroad company or the trustee or trustees of a railroad company subject to regulation under 49 U.S.C., Subtitle IV, chapter 105.
( g ) *Designated state agency* means the instrumentality created by a state or designated by appropriate authority to administer or coordinate its state rail plan.
( h ) *Forecast Year* means the 12-month period, beginning with the first day of the month in which the application is filed with the Board, for which future revenues and costs are estimated.
( i ) *Form R-1* means the railroad's annual report filed with the Board in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11145.
( j ) *Offeror* means a shipper, a state, the United States, a local or regional transportation authority, or any financially responsible person offering rail service continuation assistance under 49 U.S.C. 10904.
( k ) *URCS* means the Uniform Railroad Costing System.
( l ) *Significant user* means: ( 1 ) Each of the 10 rail patrons which originated and/or received the largest number of carloads (or each patron if there are less than 10); and
( 2 ) Any other rail patron which originated and/or received 50 or more carloads, on the line proposed for abandonment or discontinuance, during the 12-month period preceding the month in which notice is given of the abandonment or discontinuance application.
( m ) *Subsidy year* means any 12-month period for which a subsidy agreement has been negotiated and is in operation.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41211

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS GALINDO-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-1238-1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis GalindoMorales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Galindo-Morales has not filed a response. We 

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41211 Document: 00514545157 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2018
No. 17-41211

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-41211 Document: 00514545157 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2018