alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Lisa M Thornton [mailto:l.thornton@bresnan.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 3:15 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: U.S. Labor Department seeks public comments on mental health and addiction law

• Types of financial requirements or treatment limits plans currently 

impose. 

• Plans should cover the cost at 100% once a person's deductible is 

met. There should be a small office co-pay and then the remainder 

should be covered once again at 100%. 

• Current disclosure practices by plans regarding medical necessity 

determinations and denials of mental health benefits. 

• Medical necessity and pre-authorizations should not be required. If a 

medical doctor or mental health professional shows just cause that 

someone needs care then that should be enough. 

• Current practices regarding out-of-network coverage for mental health 

benefits. 

• Out-of-network should be completely be eliminated. There should be 

no in-network and out-of-network. I think all medical professionals 

and facilities should be mandated to accept all insurance assignments 

regardless of networking.

• I do not believe we should have managed care the way other countries 

do. We are "America", Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. 

Why should our government control our right to choose who we want 

to see and where we want to obtain our medical care. 

 

Lisa Thornton

Cell - (406) 261-8037

Fax - (406) 709-2132
#### § 213.53 Gage.

(a) Gage is measured between the heads of the rails at right-angles to the rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch below the top of the rail head.

(b) Gage shall be within the limits prescribed in the following table—

| Class of track | The gage must be at least— | But not more than— |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Excepted track | N/A | 4′101/4′′. |
| Class 1 track | 4′8′′ | 4′10′′. |
| Class 2 and 3 track | 4′8′′ | 4′93/4′′. |
| Class 4 and 5 track | 4′8′′ | 4′91/2′′. |
§ 17.10 How does the Secretary make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through its single point of contact, the Secretary either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with a written explanation of the decision, in such form as the Secretary in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Secretary may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the Secretary informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Department will not implement its decision for at least ten days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Secretary has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least ten days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      658
<ALLOWANCES>                                        76
<INVENTORY>                                         83
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   797
<PP&E>                                             122
<DEPRECIATION>                                      24
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,014
<BONDS>                                             69
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           470
<OTHER-SE>                                        (423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,822
<SALES>                                            200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   449
<CGS>                                              148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       81
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (320)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Anna L. Horton, Appellant, *v.*Binghamton Press Company, Respondent.

*Horton*v. *Binghamton Press Co.,*122 App. Div. 332, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted December 12, 1910;

decided December 16, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered *551November 13, 1907, which affirmed ail order of the court at a Trial Term setting aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granting a new trial in an action for libel.

*John P. Wheeler*for appellant.

*T. B. Merchant*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Unsolicited Immunology Single Project Application.                    

*Date:*                         September 19, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Room 3123, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alec Ritchie, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NIAID/DEA Scientific Review Program, 6700B Rockledge Drive MSC 7616, Room 3123, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1614,                         *aritchie@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4220  Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
From: b_swilling@yahoo.com [mailto:b_swilling@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:42 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, 

Beth Swilling 

11905 N Normandie St 

Spokane, WA 99218
#### H. J. Timon v. The State.

*No. 561.*

*Decided April 23.*

*1.*Plea of Former Jeopardy.—A plea of former jeopardy is not maintainable where the former indictment seeking to charge the same oifense was fatally defective.

2. Aggravated Assault—Separate Counts—Election.—Where the indictment contained two grounds of aggravation in separate counts, it was not error to refuse to require the State to elect upon which count it would seek a conviction, this being a misdemeanor.

8. Charge of Court.—A charge of the court is not erroneous which is based on an allegation in the indictment, supported by the proof.

4. Insulting Words—Effect of Upon Grade of Offense.—Grossly insulting words, while they may mitigate the punishment, will not justify or reduce the offense of aggravated to simple assault.

*364Arreal from the County Court of Bee. Tried below before Hon. Felix J. Hart, County Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

*T.*(?. *Ghambless,*for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and battery, and fined $25. Plea of jeopardy was properly stricken out. The former indictment, after appellant was placed on trial thereunder, was dismissed, because fatally defective in not alleging venue. Where the indictment is too defective to form the basis of a judgment, a trial thereunder can not afford jeopardy, as against a good indictment charging the same offense, sought to be set out in the first. See Willson’s Criminal Statutes, section 1452, for collated authorities.

The indictment charges, in separate counts, two grounds of aggravation, to wit, use of a deadly weapon, and causing serious bodily injury. It was not error to overrule appellant’s motion to require the prosecution to elect upon which count the State would seek a conviction. This is a misdemeanor. This is never required, even in felonies, where the various counts set out in the same indictment are for the same transaction, and alleged for the purpose of meeting the evidence as it may develop upon the trial. See Willson’s Criminal Statutes, section 2004, for authorities.

The court did not err in charging in regard to an assault producing serious bodily injury. This ground of aggravation was averred in one of the counts, as a means by which the assault became aggravated, and the evidence fully supported it.

It was not error to refuse a special requested instruction, that grossly insulting words would reduce from aggravated to simple assault. Such language may mitigate the punishment of the offense actually com: mitted, but does not justify or reduce the offense.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:07 AM

To: 'jadams@uasdevelopment.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Unmanned Aerial Systems Development, Inc. 

(FAA-2015-0912)

June 4, 2015 

Dear Mr. Adams: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−0912). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process 

your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by June 18, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
§ 229.101 Engines. ( a ) The temperature and pressure alarms, controls and related switches of internal combustion engines shall function properly.
( b ) Whenever an engine has been shut down due to mechanical or other problems, a distinctive warning notice giving reason for the shut-down shall be conspicuously attached near the engine starting control until repairs have been made.
( c ) Wheel slip/slide protection shall be provided on a locomotive with an engine displaying a warning notice whenever required by § 229.115(b).
#### NILES CASE, Respondent, *v.*FRANK PEREW, Appellant.

I *City ordinance requiring a, boat to keep a light out —failv/re to keep the light constitutes negligence*— it *cannot be shown that it was the custom not to comply with the ordinance.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury rendered in the Erie County Court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The action was brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant’s propeller running into and injuring the plaintiff’s canal boat in the harbor of Buffalo creek.

The court at General Term, after holding that an error had been made in the admission of certain evidence upon the trial, said: *“*The harbor of Buffalo creek is within the limits of the city of Buffalo and is declared to be a public highway, and the common council are vested with the authority to widen, straighten or enlarge the same and are authorized to regulate and alter the wharves, piers, *131docks, canals and slips in the said city, and have also power to regulate and control the mode and manner of navigating the same. (City charter, chap. 519, Laws of 1870, tit. 8, §§ 1, 19.)-

“The common council passed an ordinance requiring ‘canal boats to keep an out-port and conspicuous light,’ and gave a penalty for refusing so to do. With the view of establishing the plaintiff’s negligence which contributed, to the injury, as the defendant claimed, the defendant gave evidence establishing, or at least tending to establish, that the men in charge of the plaintiff’s Canal boat did not observe this ordinance. The plaintiff was permitted to prove, over the defendant’s exception, that it -was not the custom of canal boats to conform to the requirements of the ordinance by exhibiting the light required.

“ The omission of other parties to observe this ordinance is no legal excuse for the plaintiff in omitting to comply with its requirements. If the plaintiff failed to keep the out-port light as required by the ordinance it tended to prove negligence on his part, and the receipt of the evidence objected to was practically a ruling by the court, and the jury must have so understood it, as excusing the plaintiff’s violation of the ordinance, if there was.in fact an omission to display the light required by the ordinance.”

*James M.*Humphrey, for the appellant.

*Williams c& Potter,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barker, J.

Present — Smith, P. J., Barker, Bradley and Haight, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered in Erie County Court, costs to abide event. -
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 14, 1995 (115), Para 115.4 Message from the Senate]
[Pages 1342-1343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.115.4  message from the senate

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with an amendment in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 1530. An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1996 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment 
to the bill (H.R. 1530) ``An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 
Armed Forces, and for other purposes,'' requests a conference with the 
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints 
Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Warner, Mr. Cohen, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coats, 
Mr. Smith, Mr. Kempthorne, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
Nunn, Mr. Exon, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman,  Mr. Glenn, Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman,  and Mr. Bryan, to be the conferees on 
the part of the Senate.
  The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the 
following titles, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

       S. 1124. An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to 
     prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 
     Armed Forces, and for other purposes;
       S. 1125. An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 for military construction, and for other purposes; and

[[Page 1343]]

       S. 1126. An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1996 for defense activities of the Department of Energy, and 
     for other purposes.
```
#### § 198.1 Scope.

This part prescribes regulations governing grants-in-aid for State pipeline safety compliance programs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 192

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

#### § 192.477 Internal corrosion control: Monitoring.

If corrosive gas is being transported, coupons or other suitable means must be used to determine the effectiveness of the steps taken to minimize internal corrosion. Each coupon or other means of monitoring internal corrosion must be checked two times each calendar year, but with intervals not exceeding 71⁄2 months.

[Amdt. 192-33, 43 FR 39390, Sept. 5, 1978]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, October 18, 1995 (130), Para 130.33 Adjournment]
[Page 1552]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.130.33  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. HAYWORTH, pursuant to the special order heretofore 
agreed to, at 12 o'clock midnight, the House adjourned until 9 o'clock 
a.m. on Thursday, October 19, 1995.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         830748
<NAME>                        Arizona Land Income Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                               1000
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                    1,192
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              1,514
<INVENTORY>                              15,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          1,398
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           14,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       152
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    236
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             14,789
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            648
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             503
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .20


</TABLE>
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Healthways, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 
  
  
  
  
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
  
  
  
 /s/ Alfred LumsdaineAlfred LumsdaineChief Financial Officer