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

From: mzmarvl@uclalumni.net [mailto:mzmarvl@uclalumni.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:21 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I 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, 

Toni Lubofsky 

28925 Golden Meadow Drive 

Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
NUMBER 13-22-00389-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, XCEL 

ENERGY, INC., AND XCEL ENERGY SERVICES

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

On August 23, 2022, relators Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy 

Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to 

compel the trial court to vacate an order granting death penalty sanctions against them. 

Relators also filed: (1) an unopposed motion to exceed the word-count limit for the petition

for writ of mandamus; and (2) an unopposed motion requesting that we take judicial notice 

of a mandamus record previously filed in our cause number 13-19-00111-CV. 
2

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, Eduardo Munoz Jr. and 

Kasandra Girela Munoz, individually and as next friend of J.S., a minor, or any others 

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the 

petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten (10) days from the date of 

this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. Further, the Court, having examined and 

fully considered the relators’ motions, is of the opinion that they should be granted. 

Accordingly, we grant the relators’ unopposed motion to exceed the word-count limit and 

relators’ unopposed motion for judicial notice of the mandamus record in cause number 

13-19-00111-CV. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

25th day of August, 2022.
-----Original Message----- 

From: griffith@megapathdsl.net [mailto:griffith@megapathdsl.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:31 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, 

Tom Griffith 

1526 Glen Aylsa Ave. 

Los Angeles, CA 90041
§ 1145.3 Affirmative defenses. An incumbent rail carrier shall be deemed not to fail a performance standard in § 1145.2 if any of the conditions described in this section are met. The Board will also consider, on a case-by-case basis, affirmative defenses that are not specified in this section. ( a ) The rail carrier experiences extraordinary circumstances beyond the carrier's control, including but not limited to unforeseen track outages stemming from natural disasters, severe weather events, flooding, accidents, derailments, and washouts. A carrier's intentional reduction or maintenance of its workforce at a level that itself causes workforce shortage, or, in the event of a workforce shortage, failure to use reasonable efforts to increase its workforce, would not, on its own, be considered a defense for failure to meet any performance standard. A carrier's intentional reduction or maintenance of its power or car supply, or failure to use reasonable efforts to maintain its power or car supply, that itself causes a failure of any performance standard would not, on its own, be considered a defense.
( b ) The petitioner's traffic increases by 20% or more during the 12-week period in question, as compared to the preceding 12 weeks (for non-seasonal traffic) or the same 12 weeks during the previous year (for seasonal traffic such as agricultural shipments), where the petitioner failed to notify the incumbent rail carrier at least 12 weeks prior to the increase.
( c ) There are highly unusual shipments by the shipper during any week of the 12-week period in question. For example, a pattern might be considered highly unusual if a shipper projected traffic of 120 cars in a month and 30 cars per week, but the shipper had a plant outage for three weeks and then requested shipment of 120 cars in a single week.
( d ) The incumbent rail carrier's failure to meet the performance standard is due to the dispatching choices of a third party.
( e ) The incumbent rail carrier's failure to meet the performance standard was directly caused by the conduct of a third party. This defense will be narrowly construed to avoid undue delay of the proceeding and unnecessary litigation costs. When presenting a defense under this paragraph (e), the incumbent rail carrier must prove that such conduct was outside its reasonable control. The incumbent rail carrier must also prove that it took reasonable steps to prevent and mitigate the impact of the third-party conduct or, if the impact could not be reasonably prevented, that the incumbent carrier took reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the third-party conduct.
## Update on SNAP Rule:



## HFO - 1234yf for MVAC

Yaidi Cancel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MACS Annual Convention Orlando, FL January 26, 2011

## SNAP Process Where’s the HFO - 1234yf SNAP rule?

### HFO- 1234yf SNAP Final Rule Status

• Proposed acceptable with use conditions for new motor vehicles • Comment period closed • Final rule with OMB • Anticipated final rule publication: Spring 2011

## Questions? For More Information SNAP: • Margaret Sheppard: 202 - 343 - 9163 • Yaidi Cancel: 202- 343 - 9512 • http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/
#### Patrick O’Rourke *v.*Austin Terry.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements, and matter sent to County Court for its action. Opinion by

Boardman, J.,

and by Learned, P. J., dissenting.
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 August 20, 2011

|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 Forth Quarter of 2011 (October 1, 2011 - December 31, 2011)

|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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JULIAN N. MANNING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-2035

[October 26, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. O7-5610CF10A.

Julian N. Manning, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Edward Harrison and another, *Respondents, v.*William Peters, *Appellant.*

— Order reversed and attachment vacated, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>      
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997 
<CASH>                                            1022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10210
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13291
<PP&E>                                           12883
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            12235
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<OTHER-SE>                                       17502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40735
<SALES>                                          10406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17418
<CGS>                                             9610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1086
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2806
<INCOME-TAX>                                       629
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2176
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
        

</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: wendybrazill@mac.com [mailto:wendybrazill@mac.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:40 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, 

wendy brazill 

2607 Nichols Canyon Road 

los Angeles, CA 90046
#### Arthur J. Delaney, *Appellant, v.*The Trustees of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in the City of New York, *Respondent.*

— Order affirmed on opinion of

Barrett, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, May 25, 1995 (73), Para 73.17 Message from the Senate]
[Page 820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.73.17   message from the senate

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a concurrent 
resolution of the House of the following title:

       H. Con. Res. 72. Concurrent resolution providing for an 
     adjournment of the two Houses.
```
EXHIBIT 11

                BOSTON BIOMEDICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                        WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES

                                                Year Ended December 31,
                                         ----------------------------------
                                            1995        1996        1997
                                         ----------  ---------   ----------

Shares, basic                             2,569,641   2,915,522   4,437,801

Net effect of dilutive common stock
   equivalents-based on treasury stock
   method using average market price        470,547     424,714     342,269

                                         ----------  ----------  ----------
Shares, diluted                           3,040,188   3,340,236   4,780,070
                                         ==========  ==========  ==========


Net income, basic and diluted            $  102,990  $  481,220  $1,004,834
                                         ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income per share-basic                     0.04        0.17        0.23
Net income per share-diluted                   0.03        0.14        0.21
                                         ==========  ==========  ==========
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judge Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner

FORD MOTOR COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1254-06-1 PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 WILLIAM K. FAVINGER

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Barry Dorans; Samuel W. Meekin s, Jr.; Wolcott, Rivers, Gates, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Gregory E. Camden; Charlene A. Morring; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee.

Ford Motor Company (employer) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission awarding temporary partial disabili ty (TPD) benefits to William K. Favinger (claimant) during certain periods of wage loss. Employer cont ends the commission erred in (1) awarding claimant TPD benefits for lost ove rtime where claimant failed to prove any wage loss causally related to his compensable injury; (2) finding that claimant had no duty to market his residual work capacity to rec oup lost overtime; and (3) calculating claimant’s TPD benefits based upon the actual weekly wages he earned duri ng certain weeks post-injury as opposed to the average weekly wages claimant was able to earn post-injury. 1 We have reviewed the record,

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Employer also argues that th e commission should have averaged the wages claimant was able to earn post-injury during the twenty-o ne weeks shown on the wage chart and compare that average to his pre-injury average weekly wage in calculat ing his TPD benefits. Employer did not raise that particular argument before th e commission in its petition for reconsideration when it addressed this issue. A ccordingly, we will not consider th at argument for the first time on appeal. See Rule 5A:18.- 2 - the commission’s December 10, 2004 review opinion, its January 6, 2005 order denying employer’s petition for reconsideration, and its April 24, 2006 opinion rendered upon remand from this Court, and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in those opinions and order. See Favinger v. Ford Motor Company , VWC File No. 211-65-38 (Dec. 10, 2004 opini on, January 6, 2005 order, and April 24, 2006 opinion). We dispense with oral argumen t and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in th e materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
-----Original Message----- 

From: mimosa.burr@gmail.com [mailto:mimosa.burr@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:09 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, 

Mimosa Burr 

40 Arch St Apt B 

Redwood City, CA 94062
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of briefing. 

# SUMMARY:

Representatives from the Red Tag News Publications will present a briefing on Tuesday, July 24, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m., in the Postal Regulatory Commission's main conference room. The briefing will address service standard measurement for certain Periodicals mailings. The briefing is open to the public.

# DATES:

July 24, 2007.

# ADDRESSES:

Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ann C. Fisher, Chief of Staff, Postal Regulatory Commission, 202-789-6803.

Steven W. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-3545 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
Exhibit 32




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




I, Steven
W. King, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.







By:
            /s/
      STEVEN W. KINGName:
            Steven
      W. KingTitle:
            President,
      Chief Executive Officer, and DirectorDate:
            December
      10, 2009










I,
Paul J. Lytle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report of Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.






By:
            /s/
      PAUL J. LYTLEName:
            Paul
      J. LytleTitle:
            Chief
      Financial OfficerDate:
            December
      10, 2009








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.





This
Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) and shall not
be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### § 31.10-10 Vessels converted to tank vessels—TB/ALL.

The procedure for the inspection of vessels converted to tank vessels shall conform to the inspection for new tank vessels as called for in § 31.10-5(b), and such vessels shall comply with the requirements of inspections for converted vessels as set forth in the regulations in this subchapter.
§ 1150.23 Modified certificate of public convenience and necessity. ( a ) The operator must file a notice with the Board for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity. Operations may commence immediately upon the filing; however, the Board will review the information filed, and if complete, will issue a modified certificate notice.
( b ) A notice for a modified certificate of public convenience and necessity shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The name and address of the operator and, unless the operator is an existing rail carrier: ( i ) Its articles of incorporation or, if it is unincorporated, the facts and organizational documents relating to its formation;
( ii ) The names and addresses of all of its officers and directors and a statement indicating any present affiliation each may have with a rail carrier; and
( iii ) Sufficient information to establish the financial responsibility of the operator.
( 2 ) Information about the prior abandonment, including docket number, status and date of the first decision approving the abandonment.
( 3 ) The exact dates of the period of operation which have been agreed upon by the operator and the State which owns the line (if there is any agreement, it should be provided);
( 4 ) A description of the service to be performed including, where applicable, a description of: ( i ) The line over which service is to be performed;
( ii ) All interline connections including the names of the connecting railroads;
( iii ) The nature and extent of all liability insurance coverage, including binder or policy number and name of insurer; and
( iv ) Any preconditions which shippers must meet to receive service.
( 5 ) The name and address of any subsidizers, and
( 6 ) Sufficient information to establish the financial responsibility of any subsidizers (if the subsidizer is a State, the information should show that it has authority to enter into the agreement for subsidized operations).
( c ) The service offered and the applicable rates, charges, and conditions must be described in tariffs published by the operator to the Board's rules.