alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1582.5 Preemptive effect.

Under 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of the passenger railroad and public transportation regulations in this subchapter preempts any State law, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, except an additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order that is necessary to eliminate or reduce an essentially local security hazard; that is not incompatible with a law, regulation, or order of the U.S. Government; and that does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce.
From: nemeroff@colorado.edu [mailto:nemeroff@colorado.edu] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 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, 

Amanda Nemeroff 

2012 Spruce Street 

Boulder, CO 80302
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:42 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, 

George Dobosh 

***** 

*****, CA 91024
vyey_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


October 18, 2013


 


Mr. Kenneth Hill, Chief Executive Officer


 


Victory Energy Corporation


 


3355 Bee Caves Road


 


Austin, Texas 78746


 


Dear Kenny,


 


Please accept this letter as my resignation from the board of directors of Victory Energy Corporation, effective immediately. My resignation is not a result of a disagreement with the company but rather I have decided to pursue other business interests and wish the board and shareholders well as you continue to move the Company forward.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Robert J. Miranda


Robert J. Miranda, CPA


2801 West Coast Highway, Suite 370


Newport Beach, California 92663
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 April 6, 2013

|Filer                 | Filing Type      | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|PRINCETON CAPITAL LLC | * SLHC Formation | Princeton Capital, LLC, West Trenton, NJ to become a savings and loan holding company by acquiring up to 88% of the Bank of Maumee, Maumee, Ohio. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:04/25/2013
|Newspaper:            | Not available   
|Federal Register:     | 04/25/2013      

## 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
#### John Foster, *Respondent, v.*James H. Romer, *Appellant*.

Order of County Court vacating judgment affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Cullen, J.
#### § 213.301 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to all track used for the operation of trains at a speed greater than 90 m.p.h. for passenger equipment and greater than 80 m.p.h. for freight equipment.
§ 220.301 Purpose and application. ( a ) The purpose of this subpart is to reduce safety risks resulting from railroad operating employees being distracted by the inappropriate use of electronic devices, such as mobile telephones (cell phones or cellular phones) and laptop computers.
( b ) The applicability of this subpart is governed by § 220.3; this subpart, however, does not affect the use of working wireless communications pursuant to subparts A and B of this part.
( c ) The restrictions of this subpart C do not apply— ( 1 ) To the working radio; or
( 2 ) When a working radio failure occurs and an electronic device is used in accordance with railroad rules.
DLD-234-E NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2854

___________

IN RE: AYODELE OKE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Criminal No. 2-11-cr-00321-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 11, 2011

Before: FISHER, BARRY and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 14, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

On July 11, we denied Oke‟s mandamus petition and motion to stay state-court 

proceedings. See C.A. No. 11-2822. This current “emergency petition” is, in essence, 

more of the same. Oke argues that the Court of Common Pleas lacks jurisdiction over 

him, and that it is “unlawfully” – in violation of the Eleventh Amendment – attempting to 

compel his appearance in relation to pending state criminal charges. 1 He asks us to 

 

1

See generally CP-46-CR-0003220-2011.
2

1) prohibit Judge William R. Carpenter from presiding over the criminal case, 2) restrain 

Judge Joseph A. Smyth from “proceeding in the pre-trial conference,” and 3) enjoin court 

administrators Michael Kehs and Denis Doe from “scheduling anymore [sic] appearances 

for the relator.” Oke does not ask that we compel the District Court to grant this relief, 

but rather requests it directly from this Court. He asserts that we have authority to 

undertake these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (the Anti-Injunction Act) and 5 U.S.C. 

§ 705 (relating to judicial review of agency decisions).

Again, Oke incorrectly assumes that his attempt to remove the criminal case to 

federal court rendered further proceedings of the state court invalid. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(c)(3). Regardless, to the extent that Oke‟s filing is cognizable in mandamus or 

prohibition,2 we will dismiss the petition. Under the All Writs Act, we may issue 

extraordinary writs only “in aid of” our jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

“Traditionally, federal appellate courts have issued the writ of mandamus 

where a lower court has made an error of „jurisdictional‟ dimension. . . . In 

a variety of contexts, appellate courts have resorted to mandamus where the 

district court, in a case properly before it, took some action it was not 

empowered to take or declined to take some action required of it.”

United States v. Christian, 660 F.2d 892, 893–94 (3d Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). State 

courts are not “lower courts” from the perspective of a federal Court of Appeals, and 

principles of comity and federalism ensure that a federal court “ordinarily may not issue a 

 

2

“[M]odern courts have shown little concern for the technical and historic 

differences between” writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition. In re Sch. Asbestos 

Litig., 921 F.2d 1310, 1313 (3d Cir. 1990).
3

writ of mandamus to compel a state court to exercise a jurisdiction entrusted to it.” In re 

Grand Jury Proceedings, 654 F.2d 268, 278 (3d Cir. 1981). We therefore lack the 

authority and jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:15 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, 

CJF Heyberger 

15964 SW Breccia Drive 

Beaverton, OR 97007
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

# zotL/-**»M~** 

## 2 '2/-/f 

## _S) Directorate Identifier: -AD 

### (f'.nJ/1 muke change
.\· tu 

### thl! l'alue
. ,· in the tohle heloll'. you must ensure tlil' totals updatl' ac:c:ordingl y. 

### (f they do not. dick (or Tah) into lll/(lfhcn ow 1l[the changed ce ll. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e
.g., aircraft, engine, (e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S
. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access. testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Every Inspection 1.0 ' I - ( I 

### 120 ill I 'I 

### '• I) 1 11 t•l , II 

### ' I I" I'' () Ill I 1 I

I fll I I) I I ' (J I'll lit ill I 1 tH q 

### ,, Ill I I) 

### ' ·I I I 'II

II I IJ 11 '.II( () llt J II!) '' ( l ill () •I I 

### ' I 10 f)

Ill ,, ill I)

I I Ill • I
<'I II df} ' II Ill I I I I ' I I 

## '" The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $10,200 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if/mown) $
On-Condition Costs:

# ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) testing, and close- replacement) up) 

### Radome Replc 1t 

### 8 I $0 (), I



# . I ' 

### ' 'I ' 

### ... I •l I) dil 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfield to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious
. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

### $1 0,200 total

### compliance cost is identfied for the US Fleet for each inspection. Please note that the DAH assumes radome costs ifreplacement beocmes neccessary. Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "s ignificant regulatory action" ? 

# G YES* 

# D NO 

### [gj *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES* 

# D NO 

### [gj *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer.



# ~ YES 

# D NO 

### [gj Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? • YES* 

# D NO 

## [81 *Explanation:
-----Original Message----- 

From: patsmit@toast.net [mailto:patsmit@toast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:45 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, 

Patrick Smit 

91403 Kellogg Ln, #2 

Coos Bay, OR 97420
§ 222.3 What areas does this regulation cover? ( a ) This part prescribes standards for sounding locomotive horns when locomotives approach and pass through public highway-rail grade crossings. This part also provides standards for the creation and maintenance of quiet zones within which locomotive horns need not be sounded.
( b ) The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is the intent of FRA that the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.
( c ) This part does not apply to any Chicago Region highway-rail grade crossing where the railroad was excused from sounding the locomotive horn by the Illinois Commerce Commission, and where the railroad did not sound the horn, as of December 18, 2003.
-----Original Message----- 

From: greissp@pa.net [mailto:greissp@pa.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:44 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, 

Patricia Greiss 

198 1/2 York Rd 

Carlisle, PA 17013
Cite as 2013 Ark. 320

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-13-498

ARTHUR LEE NEWTON

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered September 5, 2013

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S

BRIEF [LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT

COURT, 39CV-13-59, HON. L.T. SIMES,

JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION

MOOT.

PER CURIAM

In 2011, appellant Arthur Lee Newton was found guilty by a jury in the Drew County

Circuit Court of sexual indecency with a child and sexual assault in the second degree. He was

sentenced to an aggregate term of 288 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals

affirmed. Newton v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 91.

In 2013, appellant filed in the Lee County Circuit Court in the county where he was

incarcerated a pro se petition for postconviction relief. The petition was correctly docketed as

a civil matter inasmuch as appellant was not convicted in that county of the offenses being

challenged in the petition. In the petition, appellant alleged that his trial was flawed on the

grounds that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel, that the prosecutor improperly

asked leading questions when examining a witness, and that he was made to sign a form

acknowledging that he was a sex offender before he was convicted. The petition was denied,

and appellant lodged an appeal in this court from the order. 

Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief.

As it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal, we dismiss the appeal. 
Cite as 2013 Ark. 320

The motion is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief

will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Watson

v. State, 2012 Ark. 27 (per curiam); Riddell v. State, 2012 Ark. 11 (per curiam).

The circuit court in this case did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition for

postconviction relief. In Arkansas, claims for postconviction relief are properly raised under

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in a petition filed in the court where the judgment

of conviction was entered. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(a)(iv) (2011). Even though appellant did not

label his petition as a petition under Rule 37.1, a pleading that mounts a collateral attack on a

judgment is governed by the provisions of our postconviction rule, Rule 37.1.1 Holliday v. State,

2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam); Evans v. State, 2012 Ark. 375 (per curiam). 

Here, appellant filed his petition in the circuit court located in the county where he was

in custody; thus, he filed his petition in a court without jurisdiction to consider his claims. 

Appeal dismissed; motion moot. 

Arthur Lee Newton, pro se appellant.

No response.

1The petition also contained allegations concerning the prosecutor’s questioning of the

witness and trial error that were a direct attack on the judgment that should have been raised in

the trial court at the time of trial. Trial error is a matter for the trial court to address. See

Nickelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 252 (per curiam). 

2
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 216

To provide that certain new Federal programs shall terminate no later than

5 years after the date of enactment of the law that establishes the programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. CUNNINGHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To provide that certain new Federal programs shall terminate no later than 5 years after the date of enactment

of the law that establishes the programs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

5 (b), any Federal program established after the date of en6 actment of this Act shall terminate on the earlier of—
2

•HR 216 IH

1 (1) any termination date specified for the pro2 gram by the provisions of the Act which authorizes

3 that program; or

4 (2) the date which is 5 years after the date of

5 enactment of such Act.

6 (b) NOT APPLICABLE TO ENTITLEMENTS.—Sub7 section (a) shall not apply to a program that requires a

8 payment by the United States to a person (including a

9 governmental entity) if, under the provisions of the Act

10 that authorizes the program, the United States is obli11 gated to make such payment to any person that meets

12 the eligibility requirements established under the program

13 for such payment.

Æ
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2 p.m., Wednesday, August 29, 2007.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Financial Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David A. Stawick, 202-418-5100.

David A. Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-3935  Filed 8-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 176.145 Segregation in single hold vessels. ( a ) On board a vessel having a single cargo hold, Class 1 (explosive) materials in hazard division/compatibility group 1.1B and 1.2B may be stowed in the same compartment with substances of compatibility group D, provided: ( 1 ) The net explosive weight of the compatibility group B explosive does not exceed 50 kg (110 pounds); and
( 2 ) The compatibility group B explosive materials are stowed in a steel portable magazine that is stowed at least 6 m (20 feet) from the compatibility group D substances.
( b ) Division/compatibility group 1.4B (explosive) materials may be stowed in the same compartment with substances of compatibility group D provided the Class 1 (explosive) materials of different compatibility groups are separated by either a distance of at least 6 m (20 feet) or by a steel partition.
[Amdt. 176-30, 55 FR 52696, Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 66 FR 45384, Aug. 28, 2001]
II

Calendar No. 424

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2262

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

MAY 23, 1996

Reported by Mr. STEVENS, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 218 North Alston Street in Foley, Alabama, as the

‘‘Holk Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at 218

5 North Alston Street in Foley, Alabama, shall be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘Holk Post Office Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United
2

•HR 2262 RS

1 States Post Office building referred to in section 1 shall

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Holk Post Office

3 Building’’.

Calendar No. 424

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2262

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building

bama, as the ‘‘Holk Post Office Building’’.located at 218 North Alston Street in Foley, AlaMAY 23, 1996

Reported without amendment
EXHIBIT 32
                                   ----------


                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 Quarterly Report of Realmark Property Investors
Limited Partnership - II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Jayson, Individual General Partner and
Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge:

        (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.


              August 14, 2007                 /s/ Joseph M. Jayson
              ---------------                 --------------------
                  Date                        Joseph M. Jayson,
                                              Individual General Partner and
                                              Principal Financial Officer