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

From: franwickner@yahoo.com [mailto:franwickner@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:36 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, 

Fran Wickner 

1637 cornell 

BERKELEY, CA 94702
§ 179.400-18 Test of inner tank. ( a ) After all items to be welded to the inner tank have been welded in place, the inner tank must be pressure tested at the test pressure prescribed in § 179.401-1. The temperature of the pressurizing medium may not exceed 38 °C (100 °F) during the test. The inner tank must hold the prescribed pressure for a period of not less than ten minutes without leakage or distortion. In a pneumatic test, due regard for the protection of all personnel should be taken because of the potential hazard involved. After a hydrostatic test the container and piping must be emptied of all water and purged of all water vapor.
( b ) Caulking of welded joints to stop leaks developed during the test is prohibited. Repairs to welded joints must be made as prescribed in AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix W (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).
[Amdt. 179-32, 48 FR 27708, June 16, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 75763, Dec. 31, 2003; 73 FR 57008, Oct. 1, 2008]
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DISTRICT, AT AMARILLO

No. 07-14-00403-CV

In the Interest of M.E., a Child

(No. 83920-2 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 OF POTTER COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

Motion fee

Reporter's record

Statewide efiling fee

Filing

Indigent

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

$10.00

$470.00

$20.00

$100.00

$25.00

$50.00

INDIGENT

UNKNOWN

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

Christine Edler

Potter County

Lynda Smith

Lynda Smith

Lynda Smith

Lynda Smith

Balance of costs owing to the Seventh Court of Appeals, Amarillo, Texas: $0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per

the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, VIVIAN LONG, CLERK OF THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of

the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears

of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the

Seventh District of Texas on May 29, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILL GREEAR, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-11533

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter came before the court on defendant Experian Information Solution’s July 30, 2015

motion to dismiss. No response was filed, and no oral argument was heard.

On June 30, 2015, this court granted Defendant's April 28, 2015 Motion for More Definite

Statement and ordered plaintiff Greear to file an amended complaint within 21 days. Plaintiff has

failed to file an amended complaint.

Pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if a court orders a more

definite statement and none is filed within the time allowed, the court may issue any appropriate

order.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant Experian Information Solutions's July 30,

2015 motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 1, 2015

5:15-cv-11533-JCO-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 32
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, October 1, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-11533-JCO-MJH Doc # 9 Filed 10/01/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 33
EX-10.18.1



 Exhibit 10.18.1 

ESA Management, LLC 
 11525
N. Community House Road 
 Suite 100 

Charlotte, NC 28277 
 October 11,
2013 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSUMPTION 

ESA Management, LLC (“ESA”) hereby acknowledges and agrees that effective upon the consummation of the transactions (the
“Closing”) contemplated by that certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of October 9, 2013 by and between ESA and HVM L.L.C. (“HVM”), ESA shall assume that certain employment agreement by and between Jonathan
Halkyard and HVM entered into on September 1, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”) in accordance with the terms of Section 2.1 of the Asset Purchase Agreement and Section 10 of the Employment Agreement. 

In addition, ESA and Jonathan Halkyard hereby agree and acknowledge the following clarifications and amendments to the Employment Agreement in light of the
assumption to be effective as of the Closing: 
  

	 	1.	All references to “HVM L.L.C.” or the “Company” shall be deemed references to “ESA Management, LLC”. 

  

	 	2.	All references to the “Manager Representatives” shall be deemed references to the “Board of Directors of Extended Stay America, Inc.” 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Acknowledgement as of the date set forth above. 

 

			
	ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher Daniello

	Name:	 	Christopher Daniello
	Title:	 	Vice President and Secretary
	
	JONATHAN HALKYARD
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jonathan Halkyard
###### Editorial Note on Part 192

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 192.493 In-line inspection of pipelines.

When conducting in-line inspections of pipelines required by this part, an operator must comply with API STD 1163, ANSI/ASNT ILI-PQ, and NACE SP0102, (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7). Assessments may be conducted using tethered or remotely controlled tools, not explicitly discussed in NACE SP0102, provided they comply with those sections of NACE SP0102 that are applicable.

[Amdt. 192-125, 84 FR 52245, Oct. 1, 2019]
-----Original Message----- 

From: birdsongmusic@earthlink.net [mailto:birdsongmusic@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:06 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, 

David Daniels 

115 Middle Jam Road 

Standish, ME 04084
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:25 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, 

Ian Cammarata
###### Editorial Note on [Part 192](/current/title-49/part-192?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at [71 FR 33406](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/71-FR-33406), June 9, 2006.

#### § 192.503 General requirements.

(a) No person may operate a new segment of pipeline, or return to service a segment of pipeline that has been relocated or replaced, until—

(1) It has been tested in accordance with this subpart and [§ 192.619](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-192.619) to substantiate the maximum allowable operating pressure; and

(2) Each potentially hazardous leak has been located and eliminated.

(b) The test medium must be liquid, air, natural gas, or inert gas that is—

(1) Compatible with the material of which the pipeline is constructed;

(2) Relatively free of sedimentary materials; and

(3) Except for natural gas, nonflammable.

(c) Except as provided in [§ 192.505(a)](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-192.505#p-192.505(a)), if air, natural gas, or inert gas is used as the test medium, the following maximum hoop stress limitations apply:

| Class location | Maximum hoop stress allowed as percentage of SMYS | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Natural gas | Air or inert gas |
| 1 | 80 | 80 |
| 2 | 30 | 75 |
| 3 | 30 | 50 |
| 4 | 30 | 40 |

(d) Each joint used to tie in a test segment of pipeline is excepted from the specific test requirements of this subpart, but each non-welded joint must be leak tested at not less than its operating pressure.

(e) If a component other than pipe is the only item being replaced or added to a pipeline, a strength test after installation is not required, if the manufacturer of the component certifies that:

(1) The component was tested to at least the pressure required for the pipeline to which it is being added;

(2) The component was manufactured under a quality control system that ensures that each item manufactured is at least equal in strength to a prototype and that the prototype was tested to at least the pressure required for the pipeline to which it is being added; or

(3) The component carries a pressure rating established through applicable ASME/ANSI, Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry, Inc. (MSS) specifications, or by unit strength calculations as described in [§ 192.143](/on/2024-09-24/title-49/section-192.143).

[[35 FR 13257](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/35-FR-13257), Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-58, [53 FR 1635](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/53-FR-1635), Jan. 21, 1988; Amdt. 192-60, [53 FR 36029](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/53-FR-36029), Sept. 16, 1988; Amdt. 192-60A, [54 FR 5485](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/54-FR-5485), Feb. 3, 1989; Amdt. 192-120, [80 FR 12779](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/80-FR-12779), Mar. 11, 2015]
-----Original Message----- 

From: mamabear1012@comcast.net [mailto:mamabear1012@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:01 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, 

Leila Rand 

5240 Hutchinson Rd. 

Sebastopol, CA 95472
-----Original Message----- 

From: noatway@sbcglobal.net [mailto:noatway@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:50 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, 

Nicholas Oatway 

3998 Grand Avenue 

Ojai, CA 93023
NO. 07-05-0184-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

JUNE 16, 2005

______________________________

MARION D. CRUSE, APPELLANT

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 106TH DISTRICT COURT OF GARZA COUNTY;

NO. 04-09-05957-CV; HONORABLE CARTER SCHILDKNECHT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Marion D. Cruse appeals from an order granting a Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment filed by appellee Texas Department of Transportation. We dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction.
2

Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on May 6, 2005 with the trial court clerk

indicating he was appealing from an April 12, 2005 order. On May 16, 2005, the clerk’s

record was received and filed in this court. On June 3, 2005, the appellate clerk sent

counsel a letter indicating that no final judgment appeared in the clerk’s record. Responses

to this letter could be received in the clerk’s office by June 13, 2005. On June 9, 2005,

appellee filed a Motion for Involuntary Dismissal contending that the April 12 order is not

a final judgment. No response has been received from appellant. 

In a civil case in which the judgment or amount in controversy exceeds one hundred

dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, an appeal from a final judgment may be taken to

the court of appeals. TEX. CIV.PRAC.& REM. CODE § 51.012 (Vernon 1997). Generally, an

appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Appeal can be taken from interlocutory orders in certain

instances authorized by statute. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272

(Tex. 1992); Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross, 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex. 1985); see, e.g.,

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014 (Vernon 1997). 

A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and

claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree. See Lehmann, 39

S.W.3d at 191; North East Independent School Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895

(Tex. 1966). 
3

We agree the order from which appellant has given notice of appeal is not a final

judgment and is not appealable. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a). 

James T. Campbell

 Justice
#### Edward C. Hazard and Frank Green, *Appellants, v.*Evolin B. Robertson and others, *Respondents.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to abide event.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.167 Compressor stations: Emergency shutdown. ( a ) Except for unattended field compressor stations of 1,000 horsepower (746 kilowatts) or less, each compressor station must have an emergency shutdown system that meets the following: ( 1 ) It must be able to block gas out of the station and blow down the station piping.
( 2 ) It must discharge gas from the blowdown piping at a location where the gas will not create a hazard.
( 3 ) It must provide means for the shutdown of gas compressing equipment, gas fires, and electrical facilities in the vicinity of gas headers and in the compressor building, except that: ( i ) Electrical circuits that supply emergency lighting required to assist station personnel in evacuating the compressor building and the area in the vicinity of the gas headers must remain energized; and
( ii ) Electrical circuits needed to protect equipment from damage may remain energized.
( 4 ) It must be operable from at least two locations, each of which is: ( i ) Outside the gas area of the station;
( ii ) Near the exit gates, if the station is fenced, or near emergency exits, if not fenced; and
( iii ) Not more than 500 feet (153 meters) from the limits of the station.
( b ) If a compressor station supplies gas directly to a distribution system with no other adequate source of gas available, the emergency shutdown system must be designed so that it will not function at the wrong time and cause an unintended outage on the distribution system.
( c ) On a platform located offshore or in inland navigable waters, the emergency shutdown system must be designed and installed to actuate automatically by each of the following events: ( 1 ) In the case of an unattended compressor station: ( i ) When the gas pressure equals the maximum allowable operating pressure plus 15 percent; or
( ii ) When an uncontrolled fire occurs on the platform; and
( 2 ) In the case of a compressor station in a building: ( i ) When an uncontrolled fire occurs in the building; or
( ii ) When the concentration of gas in air reaches 50 percent or more of the lower explosive limit in a building which has a source of ignition.
For the purpose of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, an electrical facility which conforms to Class 1, Group D, of the National Electrical Code is not a source of ignition. [35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-27, 41 FR 34605, Aug. 16, 1976; Amdt. 192-85, 63 FR 37503, July 13, 1998]
-----Original Message----- 

From: seastone@maine.rr.com [mailto:seastone@maine.rr.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:40 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, 

Alisha Langerman 

180 Shore Acres Rd. 

Parsonsfield, ME 04047
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

y0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

139995 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139995 

 COA: 293300 

Oakland CC: 2009-008922-AR 

CHARLES ARTHUR SMELLEY, Jr., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 18, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1966

To provide for the treatment of Indian tribal governments under section

403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1995

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. KLECZKA, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means

A BILL

To provide for the treatment of Indian tribal governments

under section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERN4 MENTS UNDER SECTION 403(B).

5 In the case of any contract purchased in a plan year

6 beginning before January 1, 1995, section 403(b) of the

7 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if any

8 reference to an employer described in section 501(c)(3) of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which is exempt from

10 tax under section 501 of such Code included a reference
2

HR 1966 IH

1 to an employer which is an Indian tribal government (as

2 defined by section 7701(a)(40) of such Code), a subdivi3 sion of an Indian tribal government (determined in accord4 ance with section 7871(d) of such Code), an agency or

5 instrumentality of an Indian tribal government or subdivi6 sion thereof, or a corporation chartered under Federal,

7 State, or tribal law which is owned in whole or in part

8 by any of the foregoing.

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 195

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

#### § 195.111 Fracture propagation.

A carbon dioxide pipeline system must be designed to mitigate the effects of fracture propagation.

[Amdt. 195-45, 56 FR 26926, June 12, 1991]
§ 1111.2 Content of formal complaints; joinder. ( a ) *General.* A formal complaint must contain the correct, unabbreviated names and addresses of each complainant and defendant. It should set forth briefly and in plain language the facts upon which it is based. It should include specific reference to pertinent statutory provisions and Board regulations, and should advise the Board and the defendant fully in what respects these provisions or regulations have been violated. The complaint should contain a detailed statement of the relief requested. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded, but the issues raised in the formal complaint should not be broader than those to which complainant's evidence is to be directed. In a complaint challenging the reasonableness of a rail rate, the complainant should indicate whether, in its view, the reasonableness of the rate should be examined using constrained market pricing or using the simplified standards adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10701(d)(3). If the complainant seeks to use the simplified standards, it should support this request by submitting, at a minimum, the following information: ( 1 ) The carrier or region identifier.
( 2 ) The type of shipment (local, received-terminated, etc.).
( 3 ) The one-way distance of the shipment.
( 4 ) The type of car (by URCS code).
( 5 ) The number of cars.
( 6 ) The car ownership (private or railroad).
( 7 ) The commodity type (STCC code).
( 8 ) The weight of the shipment (in tons per car).
( 9 ) The type of movement (individual, multi-car, or unit train).
( 10 ) A narrative addressing whether there is any feasible transportation alternative for the challenged movements.
( 11 ) For matters for which voluntary, binding arbitration is available pursuant to 49 CFR part 1108, the complaint shall state that arbitration was considered, but rejected, as a means of resolving the dispute.
( b ) *Disclosure with simplified standards complaint.* The complainant must provide to the defendant all documents relied upon in formulating its assessment of a feasible transportation alternative and all documents relied upon to determine the inputs to the URCS Phase III program.
( c ) *Multiple causes of action.* Two or more grounds of complaint concerning the same principle, subject, or statement of facts may be included in one complaint, but should be stated and numbered separately.
( d ) *Joinder.* Two or more complainants may join in one complaint against one or more defendants if their respective causes of action concern substantially the same alleged violations and like facts.
( e ) *Request for access to waybill data.* Parties needing access to the Waybill Sample to prepare their case should follow the procedures set forth at 49 CFR 1244.9.
( f ) *Discovery in stand-alone cost cases.* Upon filing its complaint, the complainant shall certify that it has served its initial discovery requests on the defendant.