alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: slhaehnel@juno.com [mailto:slhaehnel@juno.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:16 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, 

Stephenie Haehnel 

601 Woodchuck Trail 

Oswego, IL 60543
Exhibit 99.1


                              HUDSON UNITED BANCORP
                          AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

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


     This Certification is to accompany the Quarterly Report of Hudson United
Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report").

     I, Kenneth T. Neilson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


         /s/ KENNETH T. NEILSON
------------------------------------

KENNETH T. NEILSON
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hudson United Bancorp
August 14, 2002


                                       29
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

J.T.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 375 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,777
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     54,127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        188,452
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,451
<DEPOSITS>                                     228,940
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,737
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,287
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 272,451
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,084
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,584
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    41
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,709
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,712
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,174
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,535
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      594
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,205
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,205
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,488
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.99
<LOANS-NON>                                        596
<LOANS-PAST>                                       961
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,375
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,026
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      582
<RECOVERIES>                                       237
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,275
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,773
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            502


</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, June 30, 1995 (90), Para 90.11 Providing for the Consideration of an Adjournment Resolution]
[Pages 1090-1091]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.90.11  providing for the consideration of an adjournment resolution

  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ, by direction of the Committee on Rules, called up the 
following resolution (H. Res. 179):

       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution it shall be in order,

[[Page 1091]]

     any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to 
     consider in the House a concurrent resolution providing for 
     adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day 
     district work period.

  When said resolution was considered.
  After debate,
  On motion of Mrs. WALDHOLTZ, the previous question was ordered on the 
resolution to its adoption or rejection.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HOBSON, announced that the yeas had it.
  Mr. FROST objected to the vote on the ground that a quorum was not 
present and not voting.
  A quorum not being present,
  The roll was called under clause 4, rule XV, and the call was taken by 
electronic device.

Yeas

242

When there appeared

Nays

157
```
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending September 28, 2013

----

Bank Holding Companies            New York Private Bank & Trust Corporation, New York, New York -- determination that the bank holding company does not qualify as a smaller depository institution holding company under the Dodd-Frank Act.            -Approved, September 23, 2013                        One PacificCoast Foundation, Oakland, California, and One PacificCoast Bancorp, Inc. -- to become bank holding companies by acquiring shares of Albina Community Bank, Portland, Oregon; to retain control of One PacificCoast Bank, FSB, Oakland, a federal savings bank; and to engage in certain nonbanking activities.            -Approved, September 25, 2013            Regulations and Policies            Regulations Y (Bank Holding Companies and Change in Bank Control) and YY (Enhanced Prudential Standards) -- two interim final rules, with requests for comment, clarifying arrangements for incorporating the Basel III regulatory capital reforms into the next cycle of capital plan submissions and stress tests.            -Approved, September 24, 2013            Enforcement            SunSouth Bancshares, Inc., Dothan, Alabama -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the Alabama State Banking Department.            -Announced, September 26, 2013            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
-----Original Message----- 

From: jazzrockblues@gmail.com [mailto:jazzrockblues@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:59 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, 

Randy Brewer 

3376 Honeywood St 

Eugene, OR 97408
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending December 1, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## 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
98-2264.

#### State v. Marshall.

Lucas App. No. L-97-1199. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., dissent.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.105 Design formula for steel pipe. ( a ) The design pressure for steel pipe is determined in accordance with the following formula: *P* = (2 *St/D*) × *F × E × T* *P* = Design pressure in pounds per square inch (kPa) gauge. *S* = Yield strength in pounds per square inch (kPa) determined in accordance with § 192.107. *D* = Nominal outside diameter of the pipe in inches (millimeters). *t* = Nominal wall thickness of the pipe in inches (millimeters). If this is unknown, it is determined in accordance with § 192.109. Additional wall thickness required for concurrent external loads in accordance with § 192.103 may not be included in computing design pressure. *F* = Design factor determined in accordance with § 192.111. *E* = Longitudinal joint factor determined in accordance with § 192.113. *T* = Temperature derating factor determined in accordance with § 192.115.
( b ) If steel pipe that has been subjected to cold expansion to meet the SMYS is subsequently heated, other than by welding or stress relieving as a part of welding, the design pressure is limited to 75 percent of the pressure determined under paragraph (a) of this section if the temperature of the pipe exceeds 900 °F (482 °C) at any time or is held above 600 °F (316 °C) for more than 1 hour.
[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-47, 49 FR 7569, Mar. 1, 1984; Amdt. 192-85, 63 FR 37502, July 13, 1998]
#### § 1242.59 Train inspection and lubrication (account XX-51-62).

Separate common expenses on basis of directly assigned expenses. If there are no directly assignable expenses, separate on the basis of train miles.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Susquehanna Rheems Holdings, :

LLC; 155 Broad Street, LLC :

and Rheems Operator, LLC, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 1394 C.D. 2017

:

West Donegal Township :

Zoning Hearing Board :

:

Wenger's Feed Mill, Inc. and :

West Donegal Township :

O R D E R

NOW, September 12, 2018

, having considered appellants ’ application

for reargument and appellee West Donegal Township’s answer in response thereto

,

the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00207-CR

JOSE HOMERO CEPEDA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-DCR-02034-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 7, 2022
Release dates | 
    Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions | 
    Actions under delegated authority
    
    Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia 
  | Cleveland | Richmond 
  | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis 
  | Kansas City | Dallas 
  | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending February 23, 2013

---





## Enforcement

|
|

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact us
### SERVED: JULY 11,2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THEMATTER OF AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0291


### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OFPROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011 S0290032) has been assignedto Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.**----~**

Attachment

- Service List

------------------SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL

Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 ORIGINAL & ONE COPY

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001 ONE COPY Robert P. Silverberg, Respondent's Counsel Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP Georgetown Place, Suite 120 1101 30th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20007 TEL: 202-944-3300 FAX: 202-944-3306 ChristopherR. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Southern Region Federal Aviation Administration P. 

### 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 The Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430
.. 

### -2-
#### Folsom *v.*Orient Fire Ins. Co.

A suit brought by F. on a policy of insurance, issued to him, payable in case of loss to B., as his interest may appear, may be maintained for the benefit of B. if he appears as plaintiff in interest, even though-F. has no title to the property insured.

Judgment may be rendered on a verdict for the plaintiff, in such a suit, for the benefit of B., if after verdict he appear as plaintiff in interest.

Assumpsit, on a policy of insurance on the plaintiff’s half interest in a dwelling-house and furniture therein and in a shed, “ loss if any payable to B., as his interest may appear.” The plaintiff had no legal title to the property insured at the time of the fire, nor when the policy was issued, though the deeds conveying the property from B. to him had been made and executed, but had not been delivered. The defendants’ agent knew the true state of the title. The defendants moved for a nonsuit because the plaintiff had no title and no insurable interest in the property destroyed at the time of making the policy nor at the time of the fire.

Motion denied, and the defendants excepted.

The plaintiff had a verdict which the defendants moved to set aside.

*55
      */Stone*and Barnard, for tbe defendants.

*Hibbard*and *Whipple,*for the plaintiff.

Stanley, J.

The policy was, in terms, “ payable in case of loss to B., as his interest may appear.” The defendants had full knowledge of the state of the title. With that knowledge they issued the policy and received the premium therefor. At the time of the fire the whole title was in B. On these facts the action may he maintained in the plaintiff’s name for the benefit of B., and, if he shall elect to come in and prosecute this suit as plaintiff in interest, there may be judgment on the verdict. Gen. St., *a.*207, *ss. 8*and 9.

*Stebbins*v. *Ins. Co., post.*Whether the suit could bo maintained in the name of B. *(Martin*v. *F. F. Ins. Co.,*9 Vroom 140; *Bailey*v. *N. E. M. L. Ins. Co.,*19 Am. Rep. 329 and *n.)*is a question we need not consider.

*Case discharged.*

Foster J., did not sit: the others concurred.
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: 6
Federal Reserve Bank of: Atlanta

## Filings received during the week ending October 31, 2009

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## 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
§ 535.311 Low market share agreements—exemption. ( a ) Low market share agreement means any agreement among ocean common carriers which contains none of the authorities listed in § 535.502(b) and for which the combined market share, based on cargo volume, of the parties in any of the agreement's sub-trades is either: ( 1 ) Less than 30 percent, if all parties are members of another agreement in the same trade or sub-trade containing any of the authorities listed in § 535.502(b); or
( 2 ) Less than 35 percent, if at least one party is not a member of another agreement in the same trade or sub-trade containing any of the authorities listed in § 535.502(b).
( b ) Low market share agreements are exempt from the waiting period requirement of the Act and this part, and are effective on filing.
( c ) Parties to agreements may seek a determination from the Director, Bureau of Trade Analysis, as to whether a proposed agreement meets the general definition of a low market share agreement.
( d ) The filing fee for low market share agreements is provided in § 535.401(g).
[69 FR 64414, Nov. 4, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 20303, Apr. 19, 2005]
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1867

For the relief of Gregory E. Walters.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Gregory E. Walters.

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

3 SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM AGAINST UNITED

4 STATES.

5 The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any

6 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the

7 sum of $225,000 to Gregory E. Walters of Knoxville, Ten8 nessee. The payment shall be in full satisfaction of any

9 claim Gregory E. Walters may have against the United

10 States arising out of any allegation made by him against

11 the Tennessee Valley Authority, with respect to the admin12 istration of any program for the insulation of houses, while
2

•HR 1867 IH

1 employed with the Tennessee Valley Authority from 1977

2 to 1980.

3 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS FEES.

4 It shall be unlawful for more than 10 percent of the

5 sum appropriated in section 1 to be paid to or received

6 by any agent or attorney for services rendered in connec7 tion with the claim described in such section. Any person

8 who violates this section shall be fined under title 18,

9 United States Code.

Æ
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending January 19, 2013

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                 | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|-------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|UNIVEST NB&TC, SOUDERTON, PENNSYLVANIA | 354310 | 08/13/2012 | 12/28/2012     | 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