alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1242.61 Freight lost or damaged—solely related (to train) (account 51-51-00).

Separate common expenses on the basis of proportion of the solely related expenses assigned to freight and passenger services or on the basis of a special study.
§ 1113.2 Subpoenas. ( a ) *Issuance.* A subpoena may be issued upon the direction of the Board on its own motion or upon request. A subpoena may be issued by the Board or by the officer presiding at a hearing and must be signed by the Director of the Office of Proceedings or a member of the Board.
( b ) *Requests.* ( 1 ) A request for a subpoena to compel the appearance of a person at a hearing to give oral testimony, but not to produce documents, may be made either by letter (only the original need be filed with the Board) or orally upon the record at the hearing. A showing of general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought to be introduced through the subpoenaed person may be required.
( 2 ) A request for a subpoena to compel a witness to produce documentary evidence should be made in writing by petition. The petition should specify with particularity the books, papers, or documents desired and facts expected to be proved, and should show the general relevance and reasonable scope of the evidence sought. The officer presiding at a hearing may grant a request for such a subpoena made orally upon the record.
( c ) *Service.* The original subpoena should be exhibited to the person served, should be read to him if he is unable to read, and a copy should be delivered to him by the officer or person making service.
( d ) *Return.* If service of subpoena is made by a United States marshal or his deputy, service should be evidenced by his return of the subpoena. If made by any other person, such person shall make an affidavit stating the date, time and manner of service; and return such affidavit on, or with, the original subpoena in accordance with the form thereon. In case of failure to make service the reasons for the failure should be stated on the original subpoena. The written acceptance of service of a subpoena by the person subpoenaed will be sufficient without other evidence of return. The original subpoena bearing or accompanied by the required return, affidavit, statement, or acceptance of service, should be returned forthwith to the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, unless otherwise directed.
( e ) *Witness fees.* A witness who is summoned and responds to the summons is entitled to the same fee as is paid for like service in the courts of the United States. Such fee is to be paid by the party at whose insistence the testimony is taken at the time the subpoena is served, except that when the subpoena is issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof, fees and mileage need not be tendered at the time of service.
[47 FR 49559, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 52712, Oct. 8, 1996; 74 FR 52907, Oct. 15, 2009; 81 FR 8854, Feb. 23, 2016]
-----Original Message----- 

From: baddog001@msn.com [mailto:baddog001@msn.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:24 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Pamela Arndt 

276 Saint Mary's Rd 

Abbottstown, PA 17301
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-814 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperative Research Projects 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and SINGAPORE 

Signed at Singapore and Washington 

July 20 and August 14, 2009 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
SINGAPORE 

Defense: Cooperative Research 

Projects 

 Agreement signed at Singapore and Washington 

 July 20 and August 14, 2009; 

 Entered into force August 14, 2009.
S10-I()()825-()S S



# MVANNA H

~ n 

## EST . 173 3 Augus t 17,201 0

Th e Honorabl e Ra

y LaHood , Secretar

y Cn^ m U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n ^ ^^ ^ 40 0 7 * Street , S W Roo m1020 0 ^ oQ S Washington , D C 2059 0 —^ " RE : Smal l Communit

y Air Servic e Development

Grant Applicatio n Docke t OST-2010-0124 , for

Savannah/Hilto n Head Internationa l Airpor t (SAV ) Dea r Secretar y LaHood : I a mplease d t o suppor

t Savannah/Hilto n Hea

d International Airpor

t i n it s effor

t t o acquire th e Departmen t

o f Transportation' s Smal l Communit y Ai r Servic e Developmen

t Progra mGrant . I hav e lon g supporte d th e Airport' s objectiv e o f attractin g affordabl e air servic e t o ou r

community . Th e presenc e o f alow-far e carrie r a t Savannah/Hilto n Hea

d Internationa

l Airpor t woul d pla

y amajo r rol e i n satisfyin g th e need s o f ou r communit

y an d benefit bot h Georgi aan d Sout

h Carolina . I hop e tha t th e highes t

consideratio n wil l b e given t o th e Airport' s applicatio n fo r thi s grant i n a n effor t t o improv e ou r

local ai r servic e fo

r th e benefi t

o f busines s an d leisur

e traveler s alike . I

t i s crucial tha

t al l conmiunitie s hav e acces s t o anationa l ai r transportirfjy asyste mwith competitiv e option s withou t compromis e b y higher

averag e airfarMrwhe

n compare d t o other

communities .

Savanna h Are aConventio n & Visitor s Burea u f O l Eas t Ba y Stree t • Savannah , G A 3 140 1 P 912.644.640 0 F 912.644.649 9 1.877.SAVANNA H WMfW.SAVANNAHVISITCO M
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:39 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 2010 

I strongly support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and Pete 

Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 1210-

AB30). 

Mental and physical health care should be covered by the same deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jeremy Ehrlich 

209 Hayes St 

Seattle, WA 98109
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2016

No. 04-16-00319-CV

Joseph Aaron HENRY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15802A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 24, 2016, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On June 6, 2016, appellant filed an 

affidavit of inability to pay costs in this court. It appears appellant did not file his affidavit in the 

trial court.

A party who cannot pay the costs of an appeal must file an affidavit of indigence “in the 

trial court with or before the notice of appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1). Appellant’s affidavit 

was therefore due to be filed in the trial court on May 24, 2016, the date his notice of appeal was 

filed, or a motion for extension of time to file the affidavit was due in this court fifteen days 

later, on June 8, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1), (3). 

We construe the affidavit filed in this court as a motion for extension of time to file the 

affidavit in the trial court. Although the affidavit was filed outside the fifteen-day deadline set 

forth in Rule 20.1(3), an untimely affidavit of indigence can be “adequate to fulfill the 

fundamental purpose of Rule 20.1.” Higgins v. Randall County Sheriff’s Office, 257 S.W.3d 684 

(Tex. 2008). Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to extend time to file an affidavit of inability 

to pay costs.

We ORDER the clerk of this court to send copies of the affidavit and this order to the 

trial court clerk, the court reporter, and all parties. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(d)(2).
We further ORDER the deadline for filing a contest to the affidavit of indigence is ten 

days from the date of this order. Any contest must be filed in this court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1(e)(1).

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 228.3 Application and responsibility for compliance. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, subparts B and D of this part apply to all railroads, all contractors for railroads, and all subcontractors for railroads. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, subparts C and E of this part apply only to all railroads.
( b ) Subparts B through E of this part do not apply to: ( 1 ) A railroad, a contractor for a railroad, or a subcontractor for a railroad that operates only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation (*i.e.,* a plant railroad as defined in § 228.5);
( 2 ) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations that are not part of the general railroad system of transportation as defined in § 228.5, except as provided in § 228.413(d)(2); or
( 3 ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.
( c ) The application of subpart F of this part is set forth in § 228.401.
[76 FR 67087, Oct. 31, 2011]
June 17, 2015 

Mr. Frank C. D’Amato 

18 Pear Street 

Barnesville, PA 18214

Dear Mr. D’Amato: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0977) on 

April 10, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you 

sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us 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. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
§ 214.301 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to prevent accidents and casualties caused by moving railroad cars, locomotives or roadway maintenance machines striking roadway workers or roadway maintenance machines.
( b ) This subpart prescribes minimum safety standards for roadway workers. Each railroad and railroad contractor may prescribe additional or more stringent operating rules, safety rules, and other special instructions that are consistent with this subpart.
( c ) This subpart prescribes safety standards related to the movement of roadway maintenance machines where such movements affect the safety of roadway workers. Except as provided for in § 214.320, this subpart does not otherwise affect movements of roadway maintenance machines that are conducted under the authority of a train dispatcher, a control operator, or the operating rules of the railroad.
[61 FR 65976, Dec. 16, 1996, as amended at 81 FR 37885, June 10, 2016]
**Exhibit No. 21.1**

 

 **SUBSIDIARIESOF REGISTRANT**

**As of September 30, 2011**

1)	PHI Capital Holdings, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 100%

Business activity: Consulting and M&A advisoryservices

 

2)	Providential Vietnam, Ltd.

Percentage of ownership: 100%

Business activity: Consulting services

 

3)	Philand Ranch Limited – UK

Percentage of ownership: 58.28%

Business activity: real estate development

 

4)	PHI Gold Corp. (formerly PHI Mining Group, Inc.)

Percentage of ownership: 82.71%

Business activity: Gold mining

 

5)	Provimex, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 85% (prior to businesscombination with Humex Medical Group Corp.)

Business activity: Import & Export (to bechanged to stem cell research and therapy after combination with

Humex Medical Group Corp.)

 

6)	PHI Energy Corporation (formerly Providential Energy Corporation)

Percentage of ownership: 32%

Business activity: energy, coal mining and coaltrading

 

7)	Touchlink Communications, Inc.

Percentage of ownership: 85%

Business activity: Multi-media
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Somanetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
we, Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance, Controller, Treasurer and Chief
Financial 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 Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

Dated: July 8, 2005              /s/ Bruce J. Barrett
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief
                                 Executive Officer

Dated: July 8, 2005              /s/ William M. Iacona
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance,
                                 Controller, Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                 Officer
#### Mary Ann Jackson, Plaintiff, *v.*Sarah Maria Rosenbrock and Others, Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Nassau Trial Term,

October, 1910.)

Jury — Eight to jury trial: Requirement that issues he framed: Waiver of right — Stipulation.

A stipulation that a cause he tried at Special Term without a jury is limited to the particular term mentioned, and if the *214ca.se is not reached tlxe plaintiff is not precluded from noticing the case for trial at a subsequent jury term, and a motion by defendant to strike the cause from the calendar will be denied.

The -plaintiff in an action of partition need not have the issues to be tried by the jury stated prior bo the notice of the cause for trial.

Where the defendant was served with -notice of trial in time to permit him to apply for an order directing -rue issues to be stated as -prescribed by section 970 of the Code of Civi-l Procedure, he will not be permitted to delay his application for such order until after the commencement of the term for which plaintiff, who is willing to adopt the statement of issues as prescribed by defendant, has noticed the case for trial.

Motion by defendant Samuel Matthews to strike case from the trial calendar upon the ground that, the action being in partition, the plaintiff had waived the right to a jury trial by entering into -a stipulation with the other defendants, *“*that- the issues of fact herein be tried before the court without a jury at the May Term, 1910,” and could not, therefore, notice -the issues for trial by jury and that plaintiff could not by motion at the opening of the term have certain questions of fact stated for jury trial at that term, under sections 970 and 1544 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without having first served -a notice of trial of such questions.

Lincoln B. Haskin, for motion.

Maxson & Jones, for plaintiff, opposed.

Scudder, J.

The stipulation which was entered into by the parties to try the case at Special Term without a jury was limited to the particular term mentioned. The case not having been reached at that time, the plaintiff was not precluded by the stipulation from noticing the case for trial at a’subsequent jury term.

It was not necessary for the plaintiff to have the issues to - be tried by jury stated before noticing it for trial. Section 1544 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides that in an action for partition the issues of fact as raised by the pleadings may he tried by jury.

*215The defendant Matthews received a notice of trial in ample time to permit him to apply to the court for an order directing the issues to he stated as prescribed by tbe Code of Civil Procedure, section 970. He should not he permitted to delay his application therefor until after the commencement of the term for which 'plaintiff has noticed the case, especially in view of the fact that plaintiff is willing to adopt the statement of issues as proposed by said defeud,ant.

Defendant’s motion to strike the case from the calendar denied, and plaintiff’s motion for statement of issues and to set this case down for trial at this term granted.

Ordered accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

* *

*We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (File Nos. 333-30320 and 333-24749), and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-94379and 333-46426) of Boston Biomedica, Inc. of our report dated March 27, 2003relating to the financial statements as of December 31, 2002 and for the twoyears then ended and financial statement schedule as of and for the years endedDecember 31, 2002 and 2001,  whichappears in this  Form 10-K.*

* *
| */s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP* |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
|                             |
| Boston,  Massachusetts           |
|                             |
| March 26, 2004                   |

 

----
From: pinyonsmoke@gmail.com [mailto:pinyonsmoke@gmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:13 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, 

bob speiser 

799 E 3800 N 

Provo, UT 84604
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA DIMMIG, a single man,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF PIMA, a political

subdivision of the State of Arizona;

CLARENCE DUPNIK, Pima County

Sheriff; LAURA YBARRA, Pima County

Sheriff; SCOTT MCLEOD, Pima County

Sheriff Deputy; STEVEN LOVE, Pima

County Sheriff Deputy,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15953

D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00189-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Joshua Dimmig appeals the district court’s grant of summary

judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for a violation of his Fourth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure. We affirm. 

FILED

APR 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plantiff does not argue that the police car’s rolling over him was anything

but an accident. Police officers’ conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment

when it involves “means intentionally applied.” Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S.

593, 597 (1989). “[T]he Fourth Amendment addresses ‘misuse of power,’ Byars v.

United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33 (1927), not the accidental effects of otherwise

lawful government conduct.” Id. at 596. Here, because the car was not a “means

intentionally applied,” the Fourth Amendment was not implicated.

Nor does this court’s “‘continuing seizure’ rule, which provides that ‘once a

seizure has occurred, it continues throughout the time the arrestee is in the custody

of the arresting officers,” Torres v. City of Madera, 524 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir.

2008) (quoting Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 1985)), help

plaintiff. Even under the continuing seizure rule, the officers must apply a use of

force—in other words, a means intentionally applied, Brower, 489 U.S. at 597—to

implicate the Fourth Amendment. 

Because the officers’ negligent conduct causing the accident did not

implicate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED. 

-2-
Exhibit 10.55


Compensation
of Non-Employee Directors


Directors who are not officers of SEACOR Holdings Inc.
(the “Company”) receive an annual retainer of $25,000 and $2,000 for every
regular and special Board and Committee meeting, respectively, that they
attend.


Each member of the Board who is not an employee of the
Company is also granted options and Common Stock pursuant to the SEACOR 2003
Non-Employee Director Share Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.25 to the Company’s
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005).
Editorial Note on Part 195
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

§ 195.134 Leak detection. ( a ) *Scope.* This section applies to each hazardous liquid pipeline transporting liquid in single phase (without gas in the liquid).
( b ) *General.* ( 1 ) For each pipeline constructed prior to October 1, 2019. Each pipeline must have a system for detecting leaks that complies with the requirements in § 195.444 by October 1, 2024.
( 2 ) For each pipeline constructed on or after October 1, 2019. Each pipeline must have a system for detecting leaks that complies with the requirements in § 195.444 by October 1, 2020.
( c ) *CPM leak detection systems.* A new computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) leak detection system or replaced component of an existing CPM system must be designed in accordance with the requirements in section 4.2 of API RP 1130 (incorporated by reference, see § 195.3) and any other applicable design criteria in that standard.
( d ) *Exception.* The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to offshore gathering or regulated rural gathering lines.
[Amdt. 195-102, 84 FR 52295, Oct. 1, 2019]