alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 99-41298 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41298 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus J. TRINIDAD GUZMAN-RANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-119-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 2000 Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J. Trinidad Guzman-Rangel (Guzman) appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Guzman challenges the characterization of his prior Illinois state convictions for possession of a controlled substance as “drug trafficking” offenses and aggravated felonies and the concomitant 16-level increase in his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). He also contends that the notice andNo. 99-41298 -2- specificity requirements of due process are violated by designating his convictions for possession as “drug trafficking.” We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Stevenson , 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th Cir. 1997). Guzman’s argument that mere possession of cocaine does not qualify as an aggravated felony for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 1997). His argument that the term “drug trafficking” as cited by the Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague and does not provide adequate notice is unfounded. Guzman is challenging a sentencing guideline, not a criminal statute. “Due process does not mandate . . . notice, advice, or a probable prediction of where, within the statutory range, the guideline sentence will fall.” United States v.
Pearson , 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990); cf. United States v. Brito , 136 F.3d 397, 407 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 159 (1998). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
-----Original Message----- 

From: jlve@live.com [mailto:jlve@live.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:26 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, 

Vladimir Enlow 

111 Acklen Park Drive, Apt. D-108 

Nashville, TN 37203
§ 211.29 Petitions for reconsideration of a final rule. ( a ) Any person may petition the Administrator for reconsideration of any rule issued under this part. Except for good cause shown, such a petition must be submitted not later than 60 days after publication of the rule in the Federal Register, or 10 days prior to the effective date of the rule, whichever is the earlier. The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an explanation as to why compliance with the rule is not possible, is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest.
( b ) If the petitioner requests consideration of additional facts, he must state the reason they were not presented to the Administrator within the allotted time.
( c ) The Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions.
( d ) Unless the Administrator specifically provides otherwise, and publishes notice thereof in the Federal Register, the filing of a petition under this section does not stay the effectiveness of a rule.
[41 FR 54181, Dec. 13, 1976, as amended at 42 FR 27593, May 31, 1977]
#### § 213.101 Scope.

This subpart prescribes minimum requirements for ballast, crossties, track assembly fittings, and the physical conditions of rails.
#### John Smith v. The State.

*No. 687.*

*Decided February 13.*

1. Theft—Indictment—Counts—Election.—Where an indictment for theft of a, horse contained two counts, the first alleging possession in the general owner, and the second in a special owner, who was holding the same for another, the general owner, *Meld,*the prosecution could not be required to elect upon which count the conviction would be claimed.

2. Same—Where Charge is Equivalent to an Election.—Where an indictment contains two or more counts, and the court in the charge to the jury submits only one of the counts, this is tantamount to an election by the State.

3. Evidence—Practice—Bill of Exceptions.—Objections to the admission of confessions as evidence will not be considered on appeal where a bill of exceptions was not reserved to the admission of such evidence.

4. Cumulative Sentence.—It is expressly enjoined upon the court, where two convictions have been bad against the same defendant, to make the last cumulative of that pronounced in the preceding conviction. Code Grim. Proe., art. 800.

Appeal from the District Court of Eastland. Tried below before Hon. T. H. Conner.

This appeal is from a conviction for theft of a horse, the penalty being assessed at five years in the penitentiary. The defendant having been previously convicted of burglary and given two years in the penitentiary, the court fixed the punishment of five years in this case, to begin at the expiration of said former judgment and sentence of two years for burglary.

*Frost, Sunt & Schmielc,*for appellant, filed an able and interesting brief.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSOH, Judge.

The indictment contains two counts: (1) charging theft of the horse from George Bosher; (2) alleging property in J. W. Bosher, and possession in S. P. Bosher. It is urged as error, that the State did not elect upon which count the prosecution would be maintained. This was not required in this case. This court has frequently suggested the practice of including different counts in indictments and information, so as to meet every phase of the transaction which might be developed by the testimony upon the trial. But if an election had been necessary, appellant can not complain because the court submitted the first count only for the consideration of the jury, and this was tantamount to an election by the State. Parks v. The State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 597; Dalton v. The State, 4 Texas Crim. App., 333; Weathersby v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 643. The supposed error of the court admitting confessions of the appellant will not be noticed, because a bill of exceptions was not reserved to its admission. Hor is there anything in the alleged error of the court making the sentence in this case cumu*124lative of that pronounced against appellant in a preceding conviction. This action of the court is expressly enjoined by statute, and therefore the court did not err in this respect. Code Crim. Proc., art. 800.

The conviction is fully supported by the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:21 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, 

Joanne Neale 

44 Dartmouth Ave. 

Needham, MA 02494
§ 179.300-3 Type and general requirements. ( a ) Tanks built under this specification shall be cylindrical, circular in cross section, and shall have heads of approved design. All openings shall be located in the heads.
( b ) Each tank shall have a water capacity of at least 1500 pounds and not more than 2600 pounds.
( c ) For tanks made in foreign countries, a chemical analysis of materials and all tests as specified shall be carried out within the limits of the United States under the supervision of a competent and impartial inspector.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Jan1dav1@aol.com [mailto:Jan1dav1@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:42 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, 

JANET SHULAR 

617 Keystone Court 

Yellow Springs, OH 45387
-----Original Message----- 

From: blight45@yahoo.com [mailto:blight45@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:43 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, 

Jacob Runnalls 

2233 Woodfield Park rd. 

Memphis, TN 38134
-----Original Message----- 

From: birgitt.dau@gmail.com [mailto:birgitt.dau@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:54 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, 

Birgitt Dau 

2225 23rd Street, Unit 207 

San Francisco, CA 94107
-----Original Message----- 

From: mary.marks@earthlink.net [mailto:mary.marks@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:38 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). 

The neediest in this country need the help. As an EMT, I know how 

difficult poeple with "head" issues--traumatically induced or not. 

They must not be deterred by extra expense. 

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, 

Mary Marks 

34561 Snickersville Tpke 

Bluemont, VA 20135
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Partnership. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   January 21, 2010   | /s/ Joseph M. Jayson                 |
|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Date                                    | Joseph M. Jayson,                                                                                                    |
|                                          | Individual General Partner,                                                                                          |
|                                          | Principal Executive Officer and                                                                                      |
|                                          | Principal Financial Officer                                                                                          |

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 195

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 195.9 Outer continental shelf pipelines.

Operators of transportation pipelines on the Outer Continental Shelf must identify on all their respective pipelines the specific points at which operating responsibility transfers to a producing operator. For those instances in which the transfer points are not identifiable by a durable marking, each operator will have until September 15, 1998 to identify the transfer points. If it is not practicable to durably mark a transfer point and the transfer point is located above water, the operator must depict the transfer point on a schematic maintained near the transfer point. If a transfer point is located subsea, the operator must identify the transfer point on a schematic which must be maintained at the nearest upstream facility and provided to PHMSA upon request. For those cases in which adjoining operators have not agreed on a transfer point by September 15, 1998 the Regional Director and the MMS Regional Supervisor will make a joint determination of the transfer point.

[Amdt. 195-59, 62 FR 61695, Nov. 19, 1997, as amended at 70 FR 11140, Mar. 8, 2005]
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Royal BodyCare, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Clinton H. Howard, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



/s/ Clinton H. HowardClinton H. HowardChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Royal BodyCare, Inc. and will be retained by Royal BodyCare, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:39 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, 

Coleen Truax 

10480 W. 62nd Ave. 

ARVADA, CO 80004
§ 194.119 Submission and approval procedures. ( a ) Each operator shall submit two copies of the response plan required by this part. Copies of the response plan shall be submitted to: Office of Pipeline Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, PHP 80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Note: Submission of plans in electronic format is preferred.
( b ) If PHMSA determines that a response plan requiring approval does not meet all the requirements of this part, PHMSA will notify the operator of any alleged deficiencies, and to provide the operator an opportunity to respond, including the opportunity for an informal conference, on any proposed plan revisions and an opportunity to correct any deficiencies.
( c ) An operator who disagrees with the PHMSA determination that a plan contains alleged deficiencies may petition PHMSA for reconsideration within 30 days from the date of receipt of PHMSA's notice. After considering all relevant material presented in writing or at an informal conference, PHMSA will notify the operator of its final decision. The operator must comply with the final decision within 30 days of issuance unless PHMSA allows additional time.
( d ) For response zones of pipelines described in § 194.103(c) OPS will approve the response plan if OPS determines that the response plan meets all requirements of this part. OPS may consult with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) if a Federal on-scene coordinator (FOSC) has concerns about the operator's ability to respond to a worst case discharge.
( e ) If OPS has not approved a response plan for a pipeline described in § 194.103(c), the operator may submit a certification to OPS that the operator has obtained, through contract or other approved means, the necessary personnel and equipment to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge or a substantial threat of such a discharge. The certificate must be signed by the qualified individual or an appropriate corporate officer.
( f ) If OPS receives a request from a FOSC to review a response plan, OPS may require an operator to give a copy of the response plan to the FOSC. OPS may consider FOSC comments on response techniques, protecting fish, wildlife and sensitive environments, and on consistency with the ACP. OPS remains the approving authority for the response plan.
[58 FR 253, Jan. 5, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 194-4, 70 FR 8748, Feb. 23, 2005; 70 FR 1140, Mar. 8, 2005; 73 FR 16570, Mar. 28, 2008; 74 FR 2894, Jan. 16, 2009]
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: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending February 16, 2013

|Filer                             | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|CORNERSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | CIC           | Mr. Gateano P. Giordano of Moorestown, NJ, to acquire up to 15.0% of Cornerstone Financial Corporation, Mt. Laurel, NJ. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:03/05/2013
|Newspaper:                        | Not available
|Federal Register:                 | 03/05/2013   
|CORNERSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION | CIC           | Mr. Mark J. Baiada of Moorestown, NJ, to acquire up to 24.9% of Cornerstone Financial Corporation, Mt. Laurel, NJ.      | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:03/05/2013
|Newspaper:                        | Not available
|Federal Register:                 | 03/05/2013   

## 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,311
<INVENTORY>                                     11,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,640
<PP&E>                                         123,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,479)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 301,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,328
<BONDS>                                        161,103
<COMMON>                                            86
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   301,568
<SALES>                                        208,908
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,908
<CGS>                                          150,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48


</TABLE>