alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 7, 2016 2016

Mr. Benjamin Swygart

Partner

Sky Squirrel Studios LLC

1030 West Packard Avenue

Fort Wayne

, IN 46807

Dear Mr. Swygart :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request on behalf of Sky Squirrel Studios LLC file d in Docket

No. FAA

– 2015

– 6498 on November 19, 2015 , but we are unable to process your request any

further as a result of a discrepancy in your petition. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent

in your petition. For us to consider the request any furth er , you must clarify the name of the

petitioner and resubmit a revised petition to your docket.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267

– 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division
-----Original Message----- 

From: larso188@umn.edu [mailto:larso188@umn.edu] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:30 PM 

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, 

c. a. larson 

14000 Forest Hill 

Eden Prairie, MN 55346
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CIVIL ACTION NO.:

 Plaintiff, HONORABLE:

vs.

EDWARD RUSH JR.

Defendant,

COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

The United States of America, plaintiff, alleges that:

Jurisdiction

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Article III, 

Section 2, U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.

Venue

2. The defendant is a resident of Wayne County, Michigan within the jurisdiction of this 

Court and may be served with service of process at 14663 Kentucky St., Detroit, MI 48238.

The Debt – Account No. 2014A70985

3. The debt owed to the United States of America is as follows:

A. Current Principal (after application of all 

prior payments, credits, and offsets) $2,710.24

B. Current Capitalized Interest Balance and 

Accrued Interest $5,731.22

C. Administrative Fee, Costs, Penalties $0.00

D. Credits previously applied (Debtor payments, 

credits, and offsets) $0.00

Total Owed $8,441.46

Case 5:14-cv-14007-JCO-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 5
The Certificate of Indebtedness, attached as Exhibit “A”, shows the total owed excluding 

attorney’s fees and CIF charges. The principal balance and interest balance shown on the Certificate of 

Indebtedness is correct as the date of the Certificate of Indebtedness after application of all prior 

payments, credits and offsets. Prejudgment interest accrues at the rate of 8% per annum. 

Failure to Pay

4. Demand has been made upon the defendant for payment of the indebtedness, and the 

defendant has neglected and refused to pay the same.

WHEREFORE, USA prays for judgment:

A. For the sums set forth in paragraph 3 above, plus prejudgment interest through 

the date of judgment, all administrative costs allowed by law, and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1961 and that interest on the judgment be at the legal rate until paid in full;

B. For attorney’s fees to the extent allowed by law; 

C. Filing fee of $350.00 as premitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(2); and,

D. For such other relief which the Court deems proper.

Respectfully submitted,

 By: /s/ Craig S. Schoenherr, Sr.____________

CRAIG S. SCHOENHERR, SR. (P32245)

Attorney for Plaintiff

O'Reilly Rancilio PC

12900 Hall Rd Ste 350

Sterling Heights, MI 48313

Phone: (586) 726-1000

Fax: (586) 726-1560

cschoenherr@orlaw.com

Case 5:14-cv-14007-JCO-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 5
Case 5:14-cv-14007-JCO-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 5
Case 5:14-cv-14007-JCO-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:14-cv-14007-JCO-MKM ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 10/17/14 Page 5 of 5
From: abrettbacon@live.com [mailto:abrettbacon@live.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 1:13 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, 

Alexis Brett-Bacon 

10386 Baby Bud St. 

Las Vegas, NV 89183
§ 178.347-5 Pressure and leakage test. ( a ) Each cargo tank must be tested in accordance with § 178.345-13 and this section.
( b ) *Pressure test.* Test pressure must be as follows: ( 1 ) Using the hydrostatic test method, the test pressure must be at least 40 psig or 1.5 times tank MAWP, whichever is greater.
( 2 ) Using the pneumatic test method, the test pressure must be 40 psig or 1.5 times tank MAWP, whichever is greater, and the inspection pressure is tank MAWP.
[Amdt. 178-89, 54 FR 25030, June 12, 1989. Redesignated by Amdt. 178-112, 61 FR 18934, Apr. 29, 1996]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 31, 1995 (105), Para 105.40 Memorials]
[Page 1233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.105.40  memorials

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       145. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the House of 
     Representatives of the State of Maine, relative to 
     memorializing the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency to require development of a gasoline that 
     reduces ozone without endangering health; to the Committee on 
     Commerce.
       146. Also, memorial of the House of Representatives of the 
     State of Texas, relative to requesting the Congress of the 
     United States to continue its efforts to determine the 
     location and status of all U.S. military personnel still 
     missing in Southeast Asia; to the Committee on International 
     Relations.
```
#### Charles E. Cone, *Respondent, v.*Roswell Warner, Appellant.—

Motion to go to the Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:

(1)The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period endedJanuary 31, 2007, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)The information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: February 28, 2007 |   |                                                            |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |                                                            |
|                    |   |                                                            |
|                    |   | /s/ Joseph C. Christenson                                       |   |
|                    |   | Joseph C. Christenson                                           |
|                    |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50256

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES RAY WATERS, SR.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CR-342-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Charles Ray Waters, Sr., appeals from a judgment of

conviction for failure to file an income tax return and to pay

taxes due in April 1991, 1992, and 1993, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7201. He argues that he is not liable for income tax

because 1) he does not engage in a revenue-taxable activity or

enjoy a privilege granted by the Government and 2) the Government

cannot prosecute under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 because the statute is

not self-executing and there are no implementing regulations.
No. 95-50256

-2-

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

See Stelly v. C.I.R., 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 474 U.S. 851 (1985). The appeal is without arguable

merit and thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-

20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
###### Editorial Note on Part 192

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

#### § 192.51 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for the selection and qualification of pipe and components for use in pipelines.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075

For the relief of Robert L. Quinn.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 19, 1995

Mrs. THURMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Robert L. Quinn.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

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

5 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to

6 Robert L. Quinn of Spring Hill, Florida, the sum of

7 $1,998. The payment shall be in full satisfaction of all

8 unsettled claims against the United States for reimburse9 ment for civil service annuity benefits that he was required

10 to repay due to an error of the Office of Personnel Man11 agement that resulted in an overpayment of his benefits
2

•HR 2075 IH

1 during the period beginning August 1, 1986, and ending

2 May 31, 1987.

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

4 It shall be unlawful for an amount that exceeds 10

5 percent of the sum described in section 1 to be paid to

6 or received by any agent or attorney for any service ren7 dered in connection with the benefits provided by this Act.

8 Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of an

9 infraction and shall be subject to a fine in the amount

10 provided in title 18, United States Code.

Æ
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2224

To exempt disability and survivor annuities from the provision delaying the

cost-of-living adjustment in Federal employee retirement benefits during

fiscal year 1996.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1995

Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Mrs. MEEK of Florida,

Mr. OWENS, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. MORAN, Mr.

LATOURETTE, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida,

Mr. UNDERWOOD, and Mr. MASCARA) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To exempt disability and survivor annuities from the provision delaying the cost-of-living adjustment in Federal

employee retirement benefits during fiscal year 1996.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

4 Section 11001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

5 Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 8340 note) is amended by adding

6 at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(d) EXEMPTION.—Subsections (a) through (c) shall

8 be disregarded for purposes of any cost-of-living increase
2

•HR 2224 IH

1 scheduled to effect, during fiscal year 1996, with respect

2 to any annuity which is—

3 ‘‘(1) a disability annuity; or

4 ‘‘(2) a survivor annuity.’’.

Æ
### From: McKaughan, Colleen

**Sent:** Tuesday, February 12, 2013 4:27 PM **To:** Bohnee, Gary **Cc:** Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; Martz, Verle **Subject:** RE: Consultation with Salt River Pima

- Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Thank you, Gary. W e look forward to our meeting with you. Colleen W. McKaughan Associate Director, Air Division USEPA, Region 9 (520) 498
- 0118

From: "Bohnee, Gary" < Gary.Bohnee@SRPMIC
- nsn.gov > To: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Martz, Verle" < vmartz@srmaterials.com >, Thomas W ebb/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Gregory

Nudd/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Dat e: 02/12/2013 03:55 PM Subject: RE: Consultation with Salt River Pima
- Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC)


### Ms. McKaughan, Thank you for the email. I apologize for not responding sooner. I will check with staff to determine an optimal time to request a meeting with you and your staff. Thanks, Gary Bohnee **From :**  McKaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:McKaughan.Colleen@epamail.epa.gov ] **Sent:** Monday, February 11, 2013 2:36 PM **To:** Bohnee, Gary **Cc:** Martz, Verle; Webb.Thomas@epamail.epa.gov ; Nudd.Gregory@epamail.epa.gov **Subject:** Consultation with Salt River Pima

- Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) Dear Mr. Bohnee, I believe I left you a voicemail on thi s topic several days ago. I wanted to follow up on the SRPMIC's request for consultation regarding EPA's proposed action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. We would be glad to meet with yo u and other representatives of the Tribe at your convenience. We have extended the public comment period in response to several requests, including the Tribe's, and the public comment period now

extends to March 6, 2013. We have provided Mr. Martz with the draft information prepared by our contractor. We are reviewing th e contractor information internally but would be interested in any discrepancies noted by SRPMIC or Phoenix Cement. Please let me know when you would like consultation to take place. Thank you very much. Colleen W. McKaughan Associate Director, Air Di vision USEPA, Region 9 (520) 498

- 0118
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, August 4, 1995 (109), Para 109.36 Message from the President--D.C. Operating Budget, FY 1996]
[Page 1294]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.109.36  message from the president--d.c. operating budget, fy 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, laid before the House a message 
from the President, which was read as follows:

To the Congress of the United States:
  In accordance with section 106(a) of the District of Columbia 
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority Act of 
1995, I am transmitting the District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority's operating budget 
for FY 1996.
  The Authority's request for its FY 1996 operating budget is $3.5 
million. This budget was developed based on an estimated staffing level 
of 35 full-time employees. After reviewing the budgets and staffing 
levels of other control boards, the Authority believes this staffing 
level is the minimum necessary to carry out its wide range of fiscal, 
management, and legal responsibilities.
  This transmittal does not represent an endorsement of the budget's 
contents.
                                                   William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, August 4, 1995.

  By unanimous consent, the message, together with the accompanying 
papers, was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight.
```
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Scherer Healthcare, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Robert P. Scherer, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934: and

 

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

 
| /s/  Robert  P. Scherer, Jr.                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                    |
| Robert P. Scherer, Jr.  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                                                                    |
| August 14, 2002                                                         |

 

----
§ 17.9 How does the Secretary receive and respond to comments? ( a ) The Secretary follows the procedures in § 17.10 if: ( 1 ) A state office or official is designated to act as a single point of contact between a state process and all federal agencies, and
( 2 ) That office or official transmits a state process recommendation for a program selected under § 17.6.
( b ) ( 1 ) The single point of contact is not obligated to transmit comments from state, areawide, regional or local officials and entities where there is no state process recommendation.
( 2 ) If a state process recommendation is transmitted by a single point of contact, all comments from state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities that differ from it must also be transmitted.
( c ) If a state has not established a process, or is unable to submit a state process recommendation, state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments either to the applicant or to the Department.
( d ) If a program or activity is not selected for a state process, state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities may submit comments either to the applicant or to the Department. In addition, if a state process recommendation for a nonselected program or activity is transmitted to the Department by the single point of contact, the Secretary follows the procedures of § 17.10 of this part.
( e ) The Secretary considers comments which do not constitute a state process recommendation submitted under these regulations and for which the Secretary is not required to apply the procedures of § 17.10 of this part, when such comments are provided by a single point of contact, by the applicant, or directly to the Department by a commenting party.
§ 179.500-11 Loading and unloading valves. ( a ) Loading and unloading valve or valves shall be mounted on the cover or threaded into the marked end of tank. These valves shall be of approved type, made of metal not subject to rapid deterioration by lading or in service, and shall withstand without leakage a pressure equal to the marked test pressure of tank. Provision shall be made for closing service outlet of valves.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### Helen M. Crossett et al., by Guardian, Plaintiffs, *v.*William N. Dean, as Trustee, et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Erie Special Term,

September, 1910.)

Security for costs —Persons who may be required to give — Infant suing by guardian.

A resident guardian *ad litem*suing in behalf of non-resident infants for funds in the hands of defendant as their trustee must be presumed to be a competent and responsible person and will not he compelled to give security for costs.

Motion to compel plaintiffs to give security for costs under section 3268, subdivision 1, and section 3271, Code of Civil Procedure.

W. O. Ramsdale, for motion.

John J. Ryan, opposed.

Pound, J.

The plaintiffs are non-resident infants, suing by resident guardian *ad*litem, duly appointed. When the plaintiff is *“*a person residing without the State ” the right to security is absolute. Code Civ. Pro., § 3268, subd. 1. But the guardian *ad litem*is personally responsible for the costs (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 469, 3249), and he must be regarded as the substantial plaintiff for the purposes of this section. The infant plaintiffs come within the letter but not within the reason of the law, and the right to security is not absolute.

But this is an action against the trustee of an express trust, and it is urged that the discretion of the court should he exercised in favor of this application under section 3271, for the reason that the guardian *ad litem*is not responsible.

The guardian of an infant plaintiff must be “ a competent and responsible person.” Code Civ. Pro., § 469. Presumptively be is such person, so long as the order appointing him *70remains in force, and he may be removed if he fails to meet these requirements. The only object in requiring security is to protect the trustee from needless or vexatious suits by irresponsible parties, and security should not be required when the action is brought in good faith by infants by a guardian *ad litem,,*duly appointed.

Furthermore, it appears that the defendant is trustee for the plaintiffs and has funds belonging to them in his hands. The suit is in equity and costs are in the discretion of the court. The contingency of loss on his part seems remote.

Motion denied.
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.462 Preparation of specimens for testing. ( a ) Each specimen (i.e., sample, prototype or scale model) must be examined before testing to identify and record faults or damage, including: ( 1 ) Divergence from the specifications or drawings;
( 2 ) Defects in construction;
( 3 ) Corrosion or other deterioration; and
( 4 ) Distortion of features.
( b ) Any deviation found under paragraph (a) of this section from the specified design must be corrected or appropriately taken into account in the subsequent evaluation.
( c ) The containment system of the packaging must be clearly specified.
( d ) The external features of the specimen must be clearly identified so that reference may be made to any part of it.