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

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:54 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, 

karen tracy 

P.O. Box 1425 

Gualala, CA 95445
## Island Aerial, Inc.

17073 SW 52st. Miramar, FL 33027 (954) 292-0022 Date: 06-26-15Date: 06-26-15

### Date: 06-26-15Island Aerial "IA" IA Max Jessurun - Pilot Island Aerial, Inc. 17073 sw 52st. Miramar, FL 33027 Max Jessurun - manager (954) 292-0022 Approved area of operation will be the United States Date: 06-26-15IA

Date: 06-26-15IA IA

Date: 06-26-15IA

Date: 06-26-15Date: 06-26-15IA IA IA IA Date: 06-26-15IA. IA
Date: 06-26-15Max Jessurun 3192063 Second 06-2015 (954) 292-0022 Date: 06-26-15Inspire 1 Drone N/A

Date: 06-26-15

### Island Aerial, Inc. IA

IADate: 06-26-15Date: 06-26-15Date: 06-26-15
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00345-CR

MIGUEL DWAYNE HOBDY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1496597D)

August 8, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
# EUR-Lex - 52003XC0828(03) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003XC0828(03)

**Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services within France (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 203 , 28/08/2003 P. 0004 - 0004 *

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services within France

(2003/C 203/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. France has decided to alter the public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services between Saint-Étienne-Bouthéon and Bordeaux-Mérignac, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 127 of 24 April 1997 pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. The new public service obligation is as follows:

Minimum frequency

The minimum level of service provided must be one return trip per day, from Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays and holiday periods, 220 days a year.

The services must be non-stop between Saint-Étienne-Bouthéon and Bordeaux-Mérignac.

Type of aircraft used and capacity provided

The service must be operated with a pressurised aircraft having a seating capacity of at least nineteen.

Timetables

The services must be provided between 7.00 and 19.00.

Commercial policy

Seats on these flights must be marketed by at least one computerised booking system.

Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 3 % of the number of flights scheduled in any year. In addition, the carrier must give six months' notice before discontinuing the services.

Community carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the abovementioned public service obligation may result in administrative and/or criminal penalties.

3. These public service obligations replace those set out in the Commission notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 127 of 24 April 1997.
#### George Digby, Respondent, *v.*Ernest H. Aldinger, Appellant.

(County Court, Chautauqua County,

November, 1910.)

Justices of the peace—Appeal and error — Proceedings for transfer of cause—Notice — Service of notice and payment of costs — Costs payable.

The costs which a party is required to pay a justice of the peace upon appealing from the judgment rendered by him do not include ten dollars costs awarded by the-County Court upon the reversal of a prior judgment to abide the event of the action.

Motion to dismiss an appeal.

Thomas H. Larkin, for appellant.

S. P. Fox, for respondent.

Ottaway, *J.*

This is a motion made by the respondent to dismiss the appeal of the appellant on the ground that the appellant in taking his appeal did not pay all of the costs taxed by the judgment as entered by the justice of the peace presiding at the trial.

The history of the case discloses that a prior judgment was obtained by the respondent against the appellant from which an appeal was taken to the County Court of Chautauqua county. An order was made reversing the judgment and directing a new trial with ten dollars costs to abide the event. A new trial was had, the respondent again recovering. An appeal has again been taken by the appellant. At the time of serving the notice of appeal the appellant made inquiry of the justice concerning the amount of the costs and was informed by the justice that the costs amounted to nine dollars and seventy cents, whereupon the appellant paid the justice the sum of eleven dollars and seventy cents, being the amount of costs together with two dollars for making a return. Subsequently the justice seems *558to have included in the judgment the sum of ten dollars directed to be paid by the order of the County Court to abide the event of the action.

The respondent insists that the justice had a right to include the ten dollars in his judgment and the appellant’s failure to pay the same entitles the respondent to a dismissal of the appeal taken herein.

We are unable to agree with the contention of the respondent. It is true that section 3047 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the appellant at the time of serving his notice of appeal to pay the costs of the action. Courts of concurrent jurisdiction, however, have held that this does not include costs awarded by the appellate courts to abide the event of the action, and that these costs are under the control of the appellate court and are to be collected, if at all, in the manner provided by the rules of that court. Van Bussem v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 16 Misc. Rep. 40; Schlesinger v. David Mayer Brewing Co., 20 id. 353.

Another reason is fatal to respondent’s contention. The ten dollar's awarded was conditional, dependent upon the event of the action. An appeal having been taken the action is not yet determined and respondent’s right to this amount not yet the subject of the final order of the court.

The motion is denied with ten dollars costs.

Motion denied.
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 August 18, 2012

----

Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to extend with revision the Weekly Report of Dealer Positions (FR 2004A), Weekly Report of Cumulative Dealer Transactions (FR 2004B), Weekly Report of Dealer Financing and Fails (FR 2004C), Weekly Report of Specific Issues (FR 2004SI), Daily Report of Specific Issues (FR 2004SD), Supplement to the Daily Report of Specific Issues (FR 2004SD ad hoc), and Daily Report of Dealer Activity in Treasury Financing (FR 2004WI), and to implement the Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y-15).            -Proposed, August 14, 2012            Regulations and Policies            Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) -- publication for comment of interagency amendments to establish new appraisal requirements for "higher-risk mortgage loans," in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act.            -Approved, August 14, 2012            Enforcement            PNBK Sponsor LLC, Stamford, Connecticut; PNBK Investment Partners LLC; PNBK Holdings LLC; and Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.            -Announced, August 16, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-4885

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY B. MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-98-69) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 17, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry M. Dash, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Damon A. King, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Fort Monroe, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Anthony B. Mitchell was convicted on one count of larceny of personal property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 7 (1994) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 661 (West Supp. 1999). The district court sentenced him to ten months in prison. Mitchell appeals, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Evidence presented at trial showed that Mitchell and Tremell Watson borrowed a screwdriver and Watson testified that they then used the screwdriver to steal a Plymouth Acclaim on base at Fort Eustis. Mitchell’s fingerprint was found on the stolen license plate affixed to the Acclaim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to have found Mitchell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Consequently, we affirm Mitchell’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, September 13, 1995 (114), Para 114.18 Federal Acquisition Reform]
[Page 1339]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.114.18  federal acquisition reform

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, pursuant to House Resolution 219 
and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1670) to revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal 
Government, to reorganize the mechanism for resolving Federal 
procurement disputes, and for other purposes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, by unanimous consent, designated 
Mr. WELLER as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole; and after some 
time spent therein,
```
From: paulteplitz1@aol.com [mailto:paulteplitz1@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:37 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, 

Paul Teplitz 

3299 Montagne Way 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, September 19, 1995 (117), Para 117.26 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 927]
[Page 1404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.117.26  providing for the consideration of h.r. 927

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART, by direction of the Committee on Rules, reported 
(Rept. No. 104-253) the resolution (H. Res. 225) providing for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 927) to seek international sanctions 
against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a 
transition government leading to a democratically elected government in 
Cuba, and for other purposes..
  When said resolution and report were referred to the House Calendar 
and ordered printed.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet for VIROPRO, INC. at March 31, 1998, and
the Condensed  Statements of Operations for the nine month period ended
March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          0
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              83,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                82,523

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          165,548
<PP&E>                                     74,675
<DEPRECIATION>                            (47,849)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            211,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      55,347
<BONDS>                                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0

<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    7,475
<OTHER-SE>                                148,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              211,376
<SALES>                                   492,737

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                     203,796

<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          343,082

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,256

<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (56,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (56,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (56,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.008)




</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 21, 1995 (119), Para 119.5 Sanctions Against Cuba]
[Page 1428]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.119.5  sanctions against cuba

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. HAYWORTH, pursuant to House Resolution 
225 and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 927) to seek international sanctions against the 
Castro government in Cuba, to plan for the support of a transition 
government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and 
for other purposes.
  Mr. DUNCAN, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, resumed the chair; 
and after some time spent therein,
```
DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 30, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01159-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF G.B., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-08410-U 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Goldstein, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case have not 

been filed. By postcard October 28, 2022, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee 

was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also 

by postcard dated October 28, 2022, we notified appellant the docketing statement 

was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statement within 

ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal. On December 30, 2022, we 

sent a letter informing appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because 

appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide, 
 –2– 

within ten days, verification she had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for 

the record or was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

221159F.P05 

 

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF G.B., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-22-01159-CV 

 On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-08410-

U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Pedersen, III. Justices Goldstein and 

Smith participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered January 30, 2023
<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, 2004 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, 2004           /s/ Bruce J. Barrett
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief Executive
                              Officer

Dated: July 8, 2004           /s/ William M. Iacona
                              --------------------------------------------------
                              William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance,
                              Controller, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
NO. 07-04-0368-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 20, 2004

______________________________ LUBBOCK GATEWOOD, L.L.C., APPELLANT

V. MCGATEWOOD, L.C., APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUB BOCK COUNTY; NO. 2003- 523,936; HONORAB LE BLAIR CHERRY , JR., JUD GE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
On October

18, 2004, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismisse d. N o motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.1. All cos ts incurre d are adjudged against the party incurring the same. James T. Campbell Justice
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 27, 1995 (103), Para 103.32 Recess--11:25 P.M.]
[Page 1213]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.103.32  recess--11:25 p.m.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOX, pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, 
declared the House in recess at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m., subject 
to the call of the Chair.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, July 28, 1995 (104), Para 104.26 Leave of Absence]
[Page 1220]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.104.26  leave of absence

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted--
  To Mr. YATES, for today after 2:00 p.m.;
  To Ms. McKINNEY, for today;
  To Mr. TANNER, for today after 11:30 a.m.;
  To Mr. CRANE, for today until 12:30 p.m.; and
  To Mr. McNULTY, for today after 1:45 p.m.
  And then,
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: concorazon@cruzio.com [mailto:concorazon@cruzio.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:09 PM 

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, 

Susan Bayer 

755 14th Ave. #403 

Santa Cruz, CA 95062
§ 207.5 Authority in States where officer not commissioned. ( a ) A railroad police officer who is designated by a railroad and commissioned under the laws of any state is authorized to enforce the laws (as specified in paragraph (b) of this section) of any state in which the railroad owns property and to which the railroad has provided notice in accordance with § 207.4.
( b ) Under the authority of paragraph (a) of this section, a railroad police officer may enforce only relevant laws for the protection of— ( 1 ) The railroad's employees, passengers, or patrons;
( 2 ) The railroad's property or property entrusted to the railroad for transportation purposes;
( 3 ) The intrastate, interstate, or foreign movement of cargo in the railroad's possession or in possession of another railroad or non-rail carrier while on the railroad property; and
( 4 ) The railroad movement of personnel, equipment, and materials vital to the national defense.
( c ) The authority exercised under this part by an officer for whom the railroad has provided notice in accordance with § 207.4 shall be the same as that of a railroad police officer commissioned under the laws of that state.
( d ) The railroad police officer's law enforcement powers shall apply only on railroad property, except that an officer may pursue off railroad property a person suspected of violating the law on railroad property, and an officer may engage off railroad property in law enforcement activities, including, without limitation, investigation and arrest, if permissible under state law.