alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.57 What happens if a recipient falls short of meeting its overall goals? ( a ) You cannot be penalized, or treated by the Department as being in noncompliance with this part, simply because your ACDBE participation falls short of your overall goals. You can be penalized or treated as being in noncompliance only if you have failed to administer your ACDBE program in good faith.
( b ) If the awards and commitments shown on your Uniform Report of ACDBE Participation (found in Appendix A to this Part) at the end of any fiscal year are less than the overall goal applicable to that fiscal year, you must do the following in order to be regarded by the Department as implementing your ACDBE program in good faith: ( 1 ) Analyze in detail the reasons for the difference between the overall goal and your awards and commitments in that fiscal year;
( 2 ) Establish specific steps and milestones to correct the problems you have identified in your analysis and to enable you to meet fully your goal for the new fiscal year;
( 3 ) ( i ) If you are a CORE 30 airport or other airport designated by the FAA, you must submit, by April 1, the analysis and corrective actions developed under paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section to the FAA for approval.
( ii ) As an airport not meeting the criteria of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section, you must retain analysis and corrective actions in your records for three years and make it available to the FAA, on request, for their review.
( 4 ) The FAA may impose conditions on the recipient as part of its approval of the recipient's analysis and corrective actions including, but not limited to, modifications to your overall goal methodology, changes in your race-conscious/race-neutral split, or the introduction of additional race-neutral or race-conscious measures.
( 5 ) You may be regarded as being in noncompliance with this part, and therefore subject to the remedies in § 23.11 of this part and other applicable regulations, for failing to implement your ACDBE program in good faith if any of the following things occur: ( i ) You do not submit your analysis and corrective actions to FAA in a timely manner as required under paragraph (b)(3) of this section;
( ii ) FAA disapproves your analysis or corrective actions; or
( iii ) You do not fully implement: ( A ) The corrective actions to which you have committed, or
( B ) Conditions that FAA has imposed following review of your analysis and corrective actions.
( c ) If information coming to the attention of FAA demonstrates that current trends make it unlikely that you, as an airport, will achieve ACDBE awards and commitments that would be necessary to allow you to meet your overall goal at the end of the fiscal year, FAA may require you to make further good faith efforts, such as modifying your race-conscious/race-neutral split or introducing additional race-neutral or race-conscious measures for the remainder of the fiscal year.
[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 77 FR 36931, June 20, 2012; 89 FR 24962, Apr. 9, 2024]
-----Original Message----- 

From: b.squires@hotmail.com [mailto:b.squires@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:54 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 03, 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, 

Blaine Jensen 

PO Box 21415 

Billings, MT 59104
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit (11)
                             WALL STREET DELI, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          For the Three Months Ended           For the Six Months Ended
                                                    December 28, 1996  December 30, 1995  December 28, 1996   December 30, 1995
                                                    -----------------  -----------------  -----------------   -----------------
 <S>                                                      <C>              <C>             <C>               <C>
 SHARES:

      Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding                                          3,326,353        3,407,317          3,368,356         3,406,960

      Effect of shares issuable under stock option
      plan as determined by the treasury stock method          1,369            4,174              3,762            10,654
                                                          ----------       ----------         ----------        ----------
      Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding as adjusted                              3,327,722        3,411,491          3,372,118         3,417,614

 PER COMMON SHARE COMPUTATIONS:

             Net income                                   $  142,111       $   52,146         $  370,458        $   69,605
                                                          ==========       ==========         ==========        ==========

 Earnings per share                                       $      .04       $      .01         $      .11        $      .02
                                                          ==========       ==========         ==========        ==========
</TABLE>





                                       18
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

Nos. 09-2468; 09-2493 ANTHONY BUCCI, Petitioner, Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on October 13, 2011, is amended as follows: One page 26, lines 18 through 23, replace "These differences suggest that, in complete closure situations, counsel’s failure to object presumptively is an unsound trial strategy, whereas in partial closure situations, no such presumption is appropriate. We consider the question of ineffective assistance under the particular facts of this case, free o f any presumption." with "These differences suggest that, in complete closure s ituations, counsel’s failure to object may in general be an unsound trial strategy, whereas in partial closure situations, no such assumption is appropriate. We consider the question of ineffective assistance under the particular facts of this case, under the usual Strickland presumption of competency."
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:55 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, 

Stanley Goldstein 

"5826 Tujunga Ave., # 6" 

North Hollywood, CA 91601
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2366 Engrossed in House (EH)]

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2366

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting requirement.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 1862 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y) is 
amended by striking subsection (h).

            Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2366

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting requirement.
```
§ 236.1041 Training and qualification program, general. ( a ) *Training program for PTC personnel.* Employers shall establish and implement training and qualification programs for PTC systems subject to this subpart. These programs must meet the minimum requirements set forth in the PTCDP and PTCSP in §§ 236.1039 through 236.1045, as appropriate, for the following personnel: ( 1 ) Persons whose duties include installing, maintaining, repairing, modifying, inspecting, and testing safety-critical elements of the railroad's PTC systems, including central office, wayside, or onboard subsystems;
( 2 ) Persons who dispatch train operations (issue or communicate any mandatory directive that is executed or enforced, or is intended to be executed or enforced, by a train control system subject to this subpart);
( 3 ) Persons who operate trains or serve as a train or engine crew member subject to instruction and testing under part 217 of this chapter, on a train operating in territory where a train control system subject to this subpart is in use;
( 4 ) Roadway workers whose duties require them to know and understand how a train control system affects their safety and how to avoid interfering with its proper functioning; and
( 5 ) The direct supervisors of persons listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.
( b ) *Competencies.* The employer's program must provide training for persons who perform the functions described in paragraph (a) of this section to ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively complete their duties related to operation and maintenance of the PTC system.
#### § 236.722 Circuit, cut-in.

A roadway circuit at the entrance to automatic train stop, train control or cab signal territory by means of which locomotive equipment of the continuous inductive type is actuated so as to be in operative condition.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 50940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4314]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a 
meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing 
is scheduled to be held. The purpose of the meeting is to review 
planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-
pencil enlistment tests.

DATES: September 20, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and September 21, 
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Ferncroft Resort, 
50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant 
Director, Accession Policy, Officer of the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons desiring to make oral presentations 
or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting 
must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number 
above no later than September 10, 2007.

    Dated: August 29, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-4314 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 237.71 Determination of bridge load capacities. ( a ) Each track owner shall determine the load capacity of each of its railroad bridges. The load capacity need not be the ultimate or maximum load capacity, but must be a safe load capacity.
( b ) The load capacity of each bridge shall be documented in the track owner's bridge management program, together with the method by which the capacity was determined.
( c ) The determination of load capacity shall be made by a railroad bridge engineer using appropriate engineering methods and standards that are particularly applicable to railroad bridges.
( d ) Bridge load capacity may be determined from existing design and modification records of a bridge, provided that the bridge substantially conforms to its recorded configuration. Otherwise, the load capacity of a bridge shall be determined by measurement and calculation of the properties of its individual components, or other methods as determined by a railroad bridge engineer.
( e ) If a track owner has a group of bridges for which the load capacity has not already been determined, the owner shall schedule the evaluation of those bridges according to their relative priority, as established by a railroad bridge engineer. The initial determination of load capacity shall be completed not later than five years following the required date for adoption of the track owner's bridge management program in conformance with § 237.31.
( f ) Where a bridge inspection reveals that, in the determination of the railroad bridge engineer, the condition of a bridge or a bridge component might adversely affect the ability of the bridge to carry the traffic being operated, a new capacity shall be determined.
( g ) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of numerical values related to a standard system of bridge loads, but shall in any case be stated in terms of weight and length of individual or combined cars and locomotives, for the use of transportation personnel.
( h ) Bridge load capacity may be expressed in terms of both normal and maximum load conditions. Operation of equipment that produces forces greater than the normal capacity shall be subject to any restrictions or conditions that may be prescribed by a railroad bridge engineer.
#### Alice Douglas, *Respondent, v.*Joseph L. Haberstro, *as Sheriff, etc., Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Barker, J., not sitting.
#### Cornelia B. Page, Appellant, *v.*James Dempsey, Respondent.

*Page*v. *Dempsey,*121 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Argued December 6, 1910;

decided January 3, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 29, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover for injuries, *560to plaintiff’s building alleged to have been caused by blasting operations of defendant on adjoining premises.

*William F. Clare*for appellant.

*Morgan J. O'Brien*and *Edward D. Dowling*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:56 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, 

Warren Fries 

2941 Corte Diana 

Carlabad, CA 92009
#### § 236.1020 [Reserved]
Docket: CMS-2009-0040 

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

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: CMS-2009-0040-0001 

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

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: CMS-2009-0040-0016 

OR-Candace Peterson (Association) 

Submitter Information 

Name: Candace Peterson 

Address: 

Newport, OR, 97365 

General Comment 

Keep in mind, that addiction and mental health can be intertwined. A depressed 

person will try anything to find relief from their own thoughts and feelings. This is 

where "self medication" begins. It starts in childhood for many, consuming 

anything that may give them the emotional relief, or the emotional absenteeism, 

that they crave, Just a little break from the depressed brain. 

There are what I refer to as the social addictions. This is created by the influence 

of peers, or someone that the person respects. An "innocent" exploration of the 

popular "party favour" drug of the moment. Or alcohol, which is always prevelent, 

and addictive. These people find themselves addicted, and are surprised when it 

happens, as it was just a little fun with friends. 

My third type of addictive observation is the full on addictive personality. It seems 

that these people become addicted to EVERYTHING. Good or bad, daily routine 

or new experience, these folks engulf and surround themselves with anything that 

they can claim as their own. How does one create a program that can touch on 

the myriad of emotional triggers, expectations, and fears that surround each 

individual? 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 12, 2009 

Received: May 10, 2009 

Status: Posted 

Posted: May 11, 2009 

Category: Association - Other

Tracking No. 809834b7 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CARL P. WAGNER AND MAY CAROL

WAGNER, HIS WIFE, AND JAMES R.

WAGNER

 v.

LARRY G. KNAPP AND BEVERLY M.

KNAPP, HIS WIFE

 v.

SPENCER, GLEASON, HEBE & RAGUE

PETITION OF: LARRY G. KNAPP AND

BEVERLY M. KNAPP, HIS WIFE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 810 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
-----Original Message----- 

From: robertherzog@juno.com [mailto:robertherzog@juno.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:40 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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. 

The stigmatization of mental illnesses has to stop. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Herzog 

152 - 15th Ave 

Seattle, WA 98122
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2224 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2224

To exempt disability and survivor annuities from the provision delaying 
 the cost-of-living adjustment in Federal employee retirement benefits 
                        during fiscal year 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

Mr. Johnston of Florida (for himself, Mr. Filner, Mrs. Meek of Florida, 
 Mr. Owens, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Moran, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. 
 Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Underwood, and Mr. 
   Mascara) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To exempt disability and survivor annuities from the provision delaying 
 the cost-of-living adjustment in Federal employee retirement benefits 
                        during fiscal year 1996.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

    Section 11001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (5 
U.S.C. 8340 note) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Exemption.--Subsections (a) through (c) shall be disregarded 
for purposes of any cost-of-living increase scheduled to effect, during 
fiscal year 1996, with respect to any annuity which is--
            ``(1) a disability annuity; or
            ``(2) a survivor annuity.''.
                                 <all>
```
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:07 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, 

Ken Schmidt 

9220 Trish Lane 

Chardon, OH 44024
Order entered September 21, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00191-CV

AUBREY THOEDE, IMPROPERLY NAMED AS AUBREY THOEDE D/B/A DIRT 

FREE CARPET, DIRT FREE CARPET & UPHOLSTERY CLEANING, INC. AND DFC 

INTERIOR SERVICES, INC., Appellants

V.

STEVE WORTHAM AND KARIN WORTHAM, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 005-01524-2014

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ September 20, 2017 unopposed second motion to extend 

time to file brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief filed no later than October 6, 

2017. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE