alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 160 (Monday, August 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 46448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4057]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Advisory Committee Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
meeting:
    Name of Committee: Army Education Advisory Committee.
    Date: September 13, 2007.
    Place: The Pentagon, Room 2E477, Arlington, VA 20310.
    Time: 0900-1700.
    Proposed Agenda: The meeting agenda includes an overview of Army 
training and a Pentagon tour, an overview of Federal Advisory 
committees, an update on the five subcommittees: Defense Language 
Institute Foreign Language Center, Command and General Staff College, 
Army War College, Distance Learning/Training Technology Applications, 
and the Reserve Officer Training Corps, and discussions focused on 
education and training within the Department of the Army.
    Purpose of the Meeting: To provide for the continuous exchange of 
information and ideas for training and education between the U.S. Army 
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), HQ Department of the Army, and 
the academic and business communities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All communications regarding this 
committee should be addressed to Mr. Carlton Hardy, at Commander, 
Headquarters TRADOC, ATTN: ATTG-CT (Mr. Hardy), Fort Monroe, VA 23651-
5000; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d6e6c7f6179626323656c7f69744d787e236c7f607423606461"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9cac8dbc5ddc6c787c1c8dbcdd0e9dcda87c8dbc4d087c4c0c5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting of the advisory committee is open to 
the public. Because of restricted meeting space and building security, 
attendance will be limited to those persons who have notified the 
Advisory Committee Management Office in writing at least five days 
prior to the meeting of their intention to attend. Contact Mr. Hardy 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7e1d1f0c120a111050161f0c1a073e0b0d501f0c130750131712"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6506041709110a0b4b0d0417011c2510164b0417081c4b080c09">[email protected]</span></a>) for meeting agenda and specific locations.
    Any member of the public may file a written statement with the 
committee before, during, or after the meeting. To the extent that time 
permits, the committee chairman may allow public presentations or oral 
statements at the meeting.

Robert E. Seger,
Senior Executive Service, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7.
[FR Doc. 07-4057 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Elon Slocum, *Respondent, v.*Milton Delano, *Sheriff, etc., Appellant.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7237

WAYNE DOUGLAS LENEAU, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

J. BENJAMIN APLIN, South Carolina Department of Probation, 

Parole, and Pardon Services, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (4:09-cv-00932-CMC) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wayne Douglas Leneau, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Wayne Douglas Leneau appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Leneau v. Aplin, No. 

4:09-cv-00932-CMC (D.S.C. June 22, 2009). Further, we deny 

Leneau’s motion for transcripts and copies at Government 

expense. 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
§ 219.609 Inclusion of contractor employees and volunteers in random testing plans. ( a ) Each railroad's random testing plan must demonstrate that all of its regulated service contractor employees and volunteers are subject to random testing that meets the requirements of this subpart. A railroad can demonstrate that its regulated service contractor employees and volunteers are in compliance with this subpart by either: ( 1 ) Directly including regulated service contractor employees and volunteers in its own random testing plan and ensuring that they are tested according to that plan; or
( 2 ) Indicating in its random testing plan that its regulated service contractor employees and volunteers are part of a random testing program which is compliant with the requirements of this subpart, *e.g.,* conducted by a contractor or C/TPA (“non-railroad random testing program”). If a railroad chooses this option, the railroad must append to its own random testing plan one or more addenda describing the method it will use to ensure that the non-railroad random testing program is testing its regulated service contractor employees and volunteers according to the requirements of this subpart. A railroad may comply with this requirement by appending the non-railroad random testing program or a detailed description of the program and how it complies with this subpart.
( b ) Each railroad's random testing plan(s) and any addenda must contain sufficient detail to fully document that the railroad is meeting the requirements of this subpart for all personnel performing regulated service on its behalf.
( c ) If a railroad chooses to use regulated service contractor employees and volunteers who are part of a non-railroad random testing program, the railroad remains responsible for ensuring that the non-railroad program is testing the regulated service contractor employees and volunteers according to the requirements of this subpart.
( d ) FRA does not pre-approve contractor or service agent random testing plans, but may accept them as part of its approval process of a railroad's plan.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The Registrant, Champion Industries, Inc., a West Virginia corporation,
does business under the trade name Chapman Printing Company. Its wholly
owned subsidiaries are:



|1.  |  | The Chapman Printing Company, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.                            
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|2.  |  | Stationers, Inc., a West Virginia corporation (doing business in Ohio as
Garrison Brewer).
|   
|3.  |  | Bourque Printing, Inc., a Louisiana corporation.                                            
|   
|4.  |  | Dallas Printing Company, Inc., a Mississippi corporation.                                   
|   
|5.  |  | Carolina Cut Sheets, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.                                     
|   
|6.  |  | U.S. Tag & Ticket Company, Inc., a Maryland corporation.                                    
|   
|7.  |  | Donihe Graphics, Inc., a Tennessee corporation.                                             
|   
|8.  |  | Smith & Butterfield Co., Inc., an Indiana corporation.                                      
|   
|9.  |  | The Merten Company, an Ohio corporation.                                                    
|   
|10. |  | Interform Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation.                                          
|   
|11. |  | CHMP Leasing, Inc., a West Virginia corporation.                                            
|   
|12. |  | Blue Ridge Printing Co., Inc., a North Carolina corporation.                                
|   
|13. |  | Rose City Press, a West Virginia corporation                                                
|   
|14. |  | Capitol Business Equipment, Inc., a West Virginia corporation                               
|   
|15. |  | Thompsons of Morgantown, Inc., a West Virginia corporation                                 
|   
|16. |  | Independent Printing Service, Inc., an Indiana corporation                                  
|   
|17. |  | Diez Business Machines, Inc., a Louisiana corporation                                       
|   
|18. |  | Transdata Systems, Inc., a Louisiana corporation
#### Matter of the Transfer Tax on the Estate of Charles B. Whiting, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

November, 1910.)

Taxes — Inheritance and transfer taxes — Property and interest subject to tax—'Estates of nonresidents — Property taxable and rate.

Only the personal property in this State of a nonresident decedent is subject to a transfer tax and the value of sucli property is to be determined as of the date of decedent’s death.

Where it appears that an executor has used property out of the State belonging to a nonresident decedent in the full payment of the pecuniary legacies and that all of decedent’s property in this State passes to a residuary legatee who is in a class of persons taxable at one per cent., the transfer tax must be imposed at that rate.

Appeal from an order fixing transfer tax.

John S. Jenkins and Thomas B. Oasey, for Comptroller.

Thomas Mills Day, for executor.

Thomas, S.

In the ease of a nonresident decedent it is only the personal property situated in this State that is the *527subject of transfer tax. Tbe purpose of tbe appraisal is, therefore, to determine the value of such property, and such value must he determined as of the date of death of the decedent. It is only as incidental to this purpose, and in order to apportion between the property in this State and the property elsewhere the debts and expenses of administration, that,an inquiry is made into the value of the property located outside of this State. Where it is shown, as it i's in this case, that the property outside of this State has been used by the executor iu the exercise of his acknowledged right of election to pay the pecuniary legacies, that it has proved sufficient to pay all of them, and that all of the property in this State passes to a residuary legatee who is in the class of persons taxable -at one per cent., the tax must be imposed at that rate. The order fixing tax is reversed.

Decreed accordingly.
### CMP-3

Revised: May 10, 2004 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Supplemental Application Form



# Conservation Management Practices: CORN, GRAIN, AND SILAGE

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to

Maximum Crop Acreage:

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Corn, Grain, or Silage:

Land Preparation/

Cultivation Select at least one of the following CMPs.
Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Bed/Row Size or Spacing, ac Mulching, ac Chemigation/Fertigation, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Combined Operations, ac Night Farming, ac Conservation Irrigation, ac Precision Farming (GPS), ac Conservation Tillage, ac Transgenic Crops, _____ ac Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Harvest Select at least one of the following CMPs.
Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Night Harvesting, ac Green Chop, ac Shuttle System, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Other Select at least one of the following CMPs.
Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Application Efficiencies, ac Night Farming, ac Bulk Materials Control No Burning, ac Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Surface Roughening, ac Irrigation Power Units Transgenic Crops, ac Mulching, ac Wind Barrier, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: CMP

3
[Civ. No. 2761.

Fourth Dist.

July 1, 1941.]

#### BERT SIMMONS, Appellant, v. DOROTHY SIMMONS Respondent.

Barry Sullivan and Carl L. Elver for Appellant.

LeRoy N. French and Platt & Sinai for Respondent.

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from an order vacating a prior1 order awarding plaintiff, pending trial of the action, $100 per month for his support, $750 for attorneys’ fees, and $25 for court costs.

The record consists of a clerk’s transcript which bears no certificate of the trial judge. It shows that three witnesses were sworn and testified. There is no reporter’s transcript nor bill of exceptions.

W aiving for the moment the technical reasons why we cannot entertain this appeal, and directing our attention to the merits, there is no sound reason presented for a reversal of the order.

The original hearing was had on July 24, 1939, in response to ar. order to show cause. On that day, by leave of court, *696defendant filed a supplemental answer in which she set up a Nevada divorce rendered on July 21, 1939, and sought to j-.ci-iro determined that plaintiff and defendant were not then and wife.

\ On the following morning the trial judge, on his own motion, reopened the hearing on the order to show cause. Both pikrties were represented by counsel. No objection was made by either counsel to the order nor to the further hearing. The (Question of lack of notice was not raised.

The''hearing proceeded without any objection\being made and the\ trial judge vacated his prior order, principally on the grouinds of defective allegations of the complaintn and the Nevada decree which terminated the marital relation formerly existing between the parties.

Plaintiff argues that the trial court had no authority, of its own motion and without notice, to vacate the former order. The Voluntary appearance of counsel and his participation in the proceedings without objection were a waiver of notice. *(Hammond Lumber Co.*v. *Bloodwood,*10 Cal. App. 561 [281 Pac. 1101*Acock*v. Halstock Cal. 215 [27 Pac. 193]; *Curtin*v. *Dunne,*10 Cal. App. 586 [102 Pac. 825] ; *Walberg*v. *Underwood,*39 Cal. App. 748 [180 Pac. 55] ; *Brown*v. *Superior Court,*65 Cal. App. 147 [223 Pac. 426].)

In the absence of a bill of exceptions or a transcript sufficiently certified by the trial judge, there is no record upon which we may consider this appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 951; *Kwon*v. *Kwon,*39 Cal. App. (2d) 232 [102 Pac. (2d) 808], and cases cited.)

The appeal is dismissed.

Barnard, P. J., and Kelly, J., *pro tem.,*concurred.
-----Original Message----- 

From: clara.villegas@ngc.com [mailto:clara.villegas@ngc.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:49 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, 

Clara Villegas 

23726 Hartland St 

West Hills, CA 91307
§ 218.30 Remotely controlled switches. ( a ) After the operator of the remotely controlled switches has received the notification required by § 218.27(c), he must line each remotely controlled switch against movement to that track and apply an effective locking device to the lever, button, or other device controlling the switch before he may inform the employee in charge of the workers that protection has been provided.
( b ) The operator may not remove the locking device unless he has been informed by the person in charge of the workers that it is safe to do so.
( c ) The operator must maintain for 15 days a written record of each notification which contains the following information: ( 1 ) The name and craft of the employee in charge who provided the notification;
( 2 ) The number or other designation of the track involved;
( 3 ) The date and time the operator notified the employee in charge that protection had been provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 4 ) The date and time the operator was informed that the work had been completed, and the name and craft of the employee in charge who provided this information.
[44 FR 2175, Jan. 10, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 6123, Feb. 10, 1983]
§ 23.37 Are firms certified under 49 CFR part 26 eligible to participate as ACDBEs? ( a ) You must presume that a firm that is certified as a DBE under part 26 is eligible to participate as an ACDBE. By meeting the size, disadvantage (including personal net worth), ownership and control standards of part 26, the firm will have also met the eligibility standards for part 23.
( b ) However, before certifying such a firm, you must ensure that the disadvantaged owners of a DBE certified under part 26 are able to control the firm with respect to its activity in the concessions program. In addition, you are not required to certify a part 26 DBE as a part 23 ACDBE if the firm does not perform work or provide services relevant to the airport's concessions program.
[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 24961, Apr. 9, 2024]
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I do believe that allowing responsible citizens to participate in 

commerce using this technology(UAS) will benefit consumers as well s business owners.

well as business owners . Safety concerns are well founded. Please keep in mind that a 

business is attempting to generate commerce not spend it.

This reality alone causes business owners to protect their investment. In doing so the 

public directly benefits from this diligent

effort to keep the tools of the trade intact.

Thank You for your consideration in this matter.

Michael Starley
Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 

Comment On: IRS-2009-0008-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS-2009-0008-0094 

Comment on FR Doc # N/A 

Submitter Information 

Name: Melody D. Moore 

Address: 

Chapel Hill, NC, 

Organization: Potential Unlimited Mentoring and Assessment 

Government Agency Type: State 

General Comment 

Dear Gentlepersons: 

I am writing in support of the position submitted to you by the National 

Association for Childrens Behavioral Health and as a citizen of the United 

States. As a long time public servant, mental health and education researcher, 

and former consulting advisor on U.S. Drug Policy research during General 

McCaffrey's watch, I have observed the costs of failure to provide sufficient 

insurance benefits for mental health and substance abuse assessment and 

treatment. In additional to the personal and family tragedy resulting from lack 

of parity of benefits, the social and financial burden imposed on the U.S. 

outweigh any costs associated with instituting parity. 

Juvenile and adult correctional facility populations are inordinately composed 

of individuals with untreated mental health and substance abuse issues. The 

costs to society of criminal activity and loss of productivity of American 

citizens who suffer and act out because of mental health and substance abuse 

issues that cannot be addressed sufficiently under the current insurance benefit 

system is immeasurable. 

The impact on families of the enormous pressures brought to bear by having a 

family member who has mental health or substance abuse issues contributes

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 29, 2009 

Tracking No. 809bc165 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009
heavily to the rise in absentee fathers and divorce within families impacted by 

these issues. 

During the past few years, even as professional woman, in the middle of the 

socio-economic spectrum, I have personally faced the difficulty of meeting my 

own adopted child's needs resulting from abuse and neglect prior to adoption, 

due to the 

tremendous financial burden of providing mental health services and medications, 

along with meeting her special educational needs. 

As stated by the association, "We are hopeful that Congress’ intent to close the 

loopholes of the 1996 parity law will improve families’ ability to access timely 

and appropriate mental and addiction treatment services as well as reduce 

cost-shifting from the private to the public sector." I humbly ask your support 

of parity legislation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Melody D. Moore
From: Thomas W Allen [mailto:twallen@wustl.edu] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022,page 19157, II B specific 

areas 1 and 4

I am a psychologist and professor who provides neurofeedback treatment to individuals with 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. Neurofeedback is an empirically 

validated and widely recognized effective non-medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other 

conditions. There are over 50 studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the 

treatment of ADHD, substance use disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature 

concluded "Neurofeedback meets the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

criteria for Clinical Guidelines for treatment of ADHD." This means that neurofeedback meets 

the same criteria as medication for treating ADHD, of which 60% of prescriptions are in fact 

prescribed "off label," and that neurofeedback "should always be considered as an intervention 

for this disorder by the clinician." 

 

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, Blue Cross, 

Cigna, and Amerigroup. 

 

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health problem. The 

reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial fell into two categories: 1) our 

company does not cover biofeedback for mental health problems or 2) there is not yet 

sufficient evidence for the efficacy of neurofeedback. As such, they are using evidence-based 

criteria that are far more restrictive for mental health services than the criteria which are used 

for medical/surgical services. There are many routine medical and surgical procedures which 

have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does neurofeedback. These medical 

and surgical procedures are generally not limited because of concerns about how many 

controlled studies have been performed about them. 

 We believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute should 

require that employers and plans pay for the same range and scope of services for behavioral 

treatments as they do for medical surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive 

in their managed care criteria and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders 

when compared to medical surgery. Today plans are being more restrictive in how they review 

evidenced-based mental health and Substance Abuse Treatments when compared to medical 

surgical treatments. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute and we hope 

that the regulations will clarify that this can't continue. 

Thank you.

Thomas W Allen, Ed.D. 

Licensed Psychologist

Associate Professor of Education 

Washington University in Saint Louis 

(314) 935-6732 

www.cismet.netfirms.com