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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 183

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require lenders to post current

interest rates charged for various categories of loans to consumers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require lenders

to post current interest rates charged for various categories of loans to consumers.

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

3 That (a) chapter 3 of the Truth in Lending Act (15

4 U.S.C. 1661 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

5 thereof the following new section:

6 ‘‘§ 148. Posting of rates of interest charged for var7 ious categories of loans to consumers

8 ‘‘(a) A creditor shall post a sign at each place of busi9 ness where he extends credit to consumers which—
2

•HR 183 IH

1 ‘‘(1) shall state in clear and conspicuous lan2 guage the current rates of interest he charges for

3 each category of loan he makes to consumers;

4 ‘‘(2) shall be situated so that it is easily visible

5 to individuals who enter the premises of the creditor;

6 and

7 ‘‘(3) complies with regulations prescribed by the

8 Board under this section.

9 ‘‘(b) The Board shall prescribe regulations to carry

10 out this section.’’.

11 (b) The table of sections of such chapter is amended

12 by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

‘‘148. Posting of rates of interest charged for various categories of loans to consumers.’’.

Æ
-----Original Message----- 

From: sdrucker@frontiernet.net [mailto:sdrucker@frontiernet.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:30 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

As Recovery & Mental Health therapist who has worked with thousands of 

people in need, I testify the urgency of mental health parity. TIMELY 

TREATMENT SAVES US ALL MONEY AND HEARTBREAK! 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, 

Steve Drucker 

1691 320th St 

Sherrard, IL 61281
-----Original Message----- 

From: leanne.staples@gmail.com [mailto:leanne.staples@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:32 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, 

Leanne Staples 

11 Lake Street 4F 

White Plains, NY 10603
-----Original Message----- 

From: dannad@aol.com [mailto:dannad@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:29 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, 

Danna Dyer 

60 Carlyle Rd 

West Hartford, CT 06117
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending December 22, 2012

----

Forms            Forms -- final Board review to implement the Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15).            -Approved, December 20, 2012            Enforcement            BSA Financial Services, Inc., Saint Augustine, Florida -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.            -Announced, December 18, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
§ 211.31 Proceedings on petitions for reconsideration of a final rule. ( a ) The Administrator may grant or deny, in whole or in part, any petition for reconsideration of a final rule without further proceedings. Each petition shall be decided not later than 4 months after its receipt by the Docket Clerk. In the event he determines to reconsider a rule, the Administrator may amend the rule or initiate a new rulemaking proceeding. An appropriate notice is published in the Federal Register.
( b ) Whenever the Administrator determines that a petition should be granted or denied, a notice of the grant or denial of a petition for reconsideration is sent to the petitioner. When a petition is granted, a notice is published in the Federal Register.
( c ) The Administrator may consolidate petitions relating to the same rule.
§ 1546.405 Qualifications of screening personnel. ( a ) No individual subject to this subpart may perform a screening function unless that individual has the qualifications described in §§ 1546.405 through 1546.411. No foreign air carrier may use such an individual to perform a screening function unless that person complies with the requirements of §§ 1546.405 through 1546.411.
( b ) A screener must have a satisfactory or better score on a screener selection test administered by TSA.
( c ) A screener must be a citizen of the United States.
( d ) A screener must have a high school diploma, a General Equivalency Diploma, or a combination of education and experience that TSA has determined to be sufficient for the individual to perform the duties of the position.
( e ) A screener must have basic aptitudes and physical abilities including color perception, visual and aural acuity, physical coordination, and motor skills to the following standards: ( 1 ) Screeners operating screening equipment must be able to distinguish on the screening equipment monitor the appropriate imaging standard specified in the foreign air carrier's security program.
( 2 ) Screeners operating any screening equipment must be able to distinguish each color displayed on every type of screening equipment and explain what each color signifies.
( 3 ) Screeners must be able to hear and respond to the spoken voice and to audible alarms generated by screening equipment at an active screening location.
( 4 ) Screeners who perform physical searches or other related operations must be able to efficiently and thoroughly manipulate and handle such baggage, containers, cargo, and other objects subject to screening.
( 5 ) Screeners who perform pat-downs or hand-held metal detector searches of individuals must have sufficient dexterity and capability to thoroughly conduct those procedures over an individual's entire body.
( f ) A screener must have the ability to read, speak, and write English well enough to— ( 1 ) Carry out written and oral instructions regarding the proper performance of screening duties;
( 2 ) Read English language identification media, credentials, airline tickets, documents, air waybills, invoices, and labels on items normally encountered in the screening process;
( 3 ) Provide direction to and understand and answer questions from English-speaking individuals undergoing screening; and
( 4 ) Write incident reports and statements and log entries into security records in the English language.
( g ) At locations outside the United States that are the last point of departure to the United States, and where the foreign air carrier has operational control over a screening function, the foreign air carrier may use screeners who do not meet the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section. At such locations the foreign air carrier may use screeners who are not United States citizens.
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: 10
Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas City

## Filings received during the week ending January 4, 2014

|Filer                           | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|BANK 7                          | * 18C* Branch  | The Montezuma State Bank, Montezuma, Kansas, to merge with and into Bank 7, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and incident thereto, to establish  branches in Montezuma and Copeland, Kansas. | Newspaper:01/25/2014Federal Register:Not applicable   
|Newspaper:                      | 01/25/2014    
|Federal Register:               | Not applicable
|INTERBANK                       | * 18C* Branch  | InterBank, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to merge with Park Cities Bank, Dallas, Texas, and incident thereto, to establish branches in Dallas(3), and Fort Worth, all in Texas.           | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                      | Not available 
|Federal Register:               | Not applicable
|OLNEY BANCSHARES OF TEXAS, INC. | * 3A3          | Olney Bancshares of Texas, Inc., Olney, Texas, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Park Cities Bank, Dallas, Texas.                                                       | Newspaper:01/27/2014Federal Register:01/30/2014       
|Newspaper:                      | 01/27/2014    
|Federal Register:               | 01/30/2014    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Edward H. G. Clark, *as Receiver, etc., Appellant, v.*Franklin J. Parmenter, *Respondent*.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.

Westbrook, J., not acting.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 5
- 00 083
- C R



### ____________________ THE ST A T E OF TEXAS , Appellant
V.
PHILLIP EDWARD NORWOOD , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On A ppeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No . 10
- 01
- 00746 CR

________________________________________________________ _____________ ORDER The State of Texas has appealed the trial court’s order dismissing an indictment for failing to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2014). On March 5, 2015, the trial court granted a motion to withdraw filed by counsel for the A ppellee, Phillip
Edward Norwood. Norwood asserts that he is indigent and requests appointment of
counsel. “ A defendant in a criminal matter is entitled to be represented by counsel in an adversarial judicial proceeding. ” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.051(a) (West Supp. 2014). An indigent defendant is entitled to have an attorney appointed2 to represent him in any adversary judicial proceeding , including an appeal. Id. art. 1.051(c), (d)(1). Matters concerni ng the appointment of counsel should be addressed by the trial court in the first instance. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(a) (West Supp. 2014). It is, ther efore, ORDERED that the case is remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whe ther the Appellee is indigent. See id. art. 1.051(m)

- (o)

. If the A pp ellee is not represented by retained counsel, is not financially able to employ counsel, and requests that counsel be appointe d, then the trial court shall appoint co unsel to represent the Appellee for the appeal unless he elects to proceed
pro se , in which case the trial court shall determine whether Appellee ’s decision is knowingly and intelligently made. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 836, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.E.2d 562 (1975); East v. State, 48 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14 th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders and findings made by the trial court and a rep orter’s record of any hearings conducted pursuant to this Order shall be filed with the Co urt of Appeals by June 29, 2015

. The appeal is abated and all appellate timetables are suspended
while the case is in the trial court.
ORDER ENTERED May 28 , 2015

. P ER CURIAM Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 193
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

§ 193.2611 Fire protection. ( a ) Maintenance activities on fire control equipment must be scheduled so that a minimum of equipment is taken out of service at any one time and is returned to service in a reasonable period of time.
( b ) Access routes for movement of fire control equipment within each LNG plant must be maintained to reasonably provide for use in all weather conditions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
             the year ended  March 30,  1999  Form  10-K  Balance  Sheets
             and Statements of Operations  and is  qualified  in its entirety by
             reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>       0000830159
<NAME>  American Tax Credit Properties, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
<CURRENCY>          US DOLLARS

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          MAR-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                              1.00
<CASH>                                                         86
<SECURITIES>                                                2,706
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  57
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                0
<PP&E>                                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              6,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         136
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                6,478
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              249
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (2,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (2,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (2,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (60.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0


</TABLE>
From: NordicChicMN@aol.com [mailto:NordicChicMN@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:11 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, 

Jennifer Schally 

1104 Creekside Circle 

Stillwater, MN 55082
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,067,183
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    67,809
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         246,645
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       629,277
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,010,914
<COMMON>                                       162,214
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      276,818
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            72,546
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 511,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          53,528
<PREFERRED>                                    65,571
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           553,434
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             7,500
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  25,645
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      7,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    34,553
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               1,730
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 750,375
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  2,010,914
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      967,046
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           30,125
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     835,387
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     865,512
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        107,672
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             4,209
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 111,881
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       51,652
<NET-INCOME>                                   60,229
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    9,452
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  50,777
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       29,199
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      30,220
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         125,508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.57
        

</TABLE>
2

11

116 Nev. 1124, 1127, 13 P.3d 947, 949 (2000). The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on appellant's motion, considered the totality of the circumstances, including the preliminary hearing transcript and a videotape of the encounter, and determined that Trooper Ames had reasonable suspicion to detain appellant and that the detention was not unconstitutionally lengthy. State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. 1170, 1173-74, 147 P.3d 223, 235-36 (2006); NRS 171.123(1). The district court also concluded that appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently consented to the search of the vehicle and that the Trooper's brief retrieval of a sweater from the vehicle, at appellant's request, did not invalidate appellant's written consent. McMorran v. State, 118 Nev. 379, 383, 46 P.3d 81, 83 (2002); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49 (1973). We conclude that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress. Appellant argues that the district court failed to read arequirement of one ounce or more into the transportation-of-a-controlledsubstance count and that, without the allegation of an amount, the count should have been dismissed. Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo, and our interpretation is controlled by legislative intent; if the statute is clear on its face, we will not look beyond the statute's plain meaning to determine legislative intent. State v. Lucero, 127 Nev. , 249 P.3d 1226, 1228 (2011). NRS 453.321 contains no language that would require the State to allege or prove a certain amount of controlled

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947AJ.

substance. 2As an element of weight was not included in the plain language of the statute, we will not create it; therefore, the district court did not err when it declined to impose a weight requirement into the statute. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the conviction AFFIRMED.

cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge Elko County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

2 NRS 453.321(1) states, in pertinent part, that "it is unlawful for a person to: (a) [i] mport, transport, sell, exchange, barter, supply, prescribe, dispense, give away or administer a controlled or counterfeit substance."

3

I