alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 5:21 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, 

Rae Bower 

4475 Burton Forest Court SE 

Grand Rapids, MI 49546
§ 229.311 Review of SAs. ( a ) Prior to the initial planned use of a product subject to this subpart, a railroad shall inform the Associate Administrator for Safety/Chief Safety Officer, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 of the intent to place this product in service. The notification shall provide a description of the product, and identify the location where the complete SA documentation described in § 229.307, the testing records contained in § 229.313, and the training and qualification program described in § 229.319 is maintained.
( b ) FRA may review or audit the SA within 60 days of receipt of the notification or anytime after the product is placed in use. If FRA has not notified the railroad of its intent to review or audit the SA within the 60-day period, the railroad may assume that FRA does not intend to review or audit, and place the product in use. FRA reserves the right, however, to conduct a review or audit at a later date.
( c ) A railroad shall maintain and make available to FRA upon request all railroad or vendor documentation used to demonstrate that the product meets the safety requirements of the SA for the life-cycle of the product.
( d ) After a product is placed in service, the railroad shall maintain a database of all safety-relevant hazards encountered with the product. The database shall include all hazards identified in the SA and those that had not been previously identified in the SA. If the frequency of the safety-relevant hazards exceeds the threshold set forth in the SA, then the railroad shall: ( 1 ) Report the inconsistency by mail, facsimile, email, or hand delivery to the Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590, within 15 days of discovery;
( 2 ) Take immediate countermeasures to reduce the frequency of the safety-relevant hazard(s) below the threshold set forth in the SA; and
( 3 ) Provide a final report to FRA's Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, on the results of the analysis and countermeasures taken to reduce the frequency of the safety-relevant hazard(s) below the calculated probability of failure threshold set forth in the SA when the problem is resolved. For hazards not identified in the SA the threshold shall be exceeded at one occurrence.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50984

c/w No. 11-50985

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE SANTOS DELCI-CRUZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-1068-1

USDC No. 2:11-CR-175-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Santos Delci-Cruz pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into

the United States, and the district court imposed a within-guidelines sentence

of 25 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. The district

court also revoked the term of supervised release imposed upon Delci-Cruz for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 18, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-50984 Document: 00511990772 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2012
No. 11-50984

c/w No. 11-50985

a prior offense and sentenced him to serve 10 months in prison, to run

consecutively to the 25-month sentence, for a total of 35 months in prison. 

Now, Delci-Cruz argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it

exceeds that necessary to reach the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends

that imposing his revocation sentence to run consecutively to his illegal reentry

sentence was more than needed to punish his revocation violation, which he

characterizes as a breach of the court’s trust, given that he is uneducated, had

a difficult childhood, and is trying to support his children. 

Because Delci-Cruz did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in

the district court, the plain error standard of review applies to this claim. See

United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 646-47 (5th Cir. 2010). To receive relief

under this standard, one must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and

that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135

(2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the

error but will do so only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. Delci-Cruz has not made the requisite

showing.

Our review of the record shows that the district court was aware of the

factors that Delci-Cruz now argues merit a lesser sentence but, unlike DelciCruz, did not believe that these factors merited concurrent, rather than

consecutive, sentences. Delci-Cruz’s arguments to this court are, at their heart,

a simple disagreement with the propriety of the district court’s weighing of the

pertinent sentencing factors. This does not show error in connection with his

sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). The

judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-50984 Document: 00511990772 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2012
-----Original Message----- 

From: Rcroessmann@mhaessex.org [mailto:Rcroessmann@mhaessex.org] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:21 AM 

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, 

Ross Croessmann 

33 south fullerton ave 

Montclair, NJ 07042
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, August 1, 1995 (106), Para 106.24 Time Limitation of Referred Bill]
[Page 1237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.106.24  time limitation of referred bill

  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the 
Speaker:

       H.R. 1670. Referral to the Committees on National Security 
     and the Judiciary extended for a period ending not later than 
     August 2, 1995.
```
#### § 230.92 Draw gear and draft systems.

Couplers, draft gear and attachments on steam locomotives and tenders shall be securely fastened, and maintained in safe and suitable condition for service.
-----Original Message----- 

From: ANGELICLIGHT64@HOTMAIL.COM [mailto:ANGELICLIGHT64@HOTMAIL.COM] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:27 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, 

Dionna McLean 

4555 Belfast Dr 

New Port Richey, FL 34652
#### Frank J. Mills and others, *Respondents, v.*N. Holmes Odell and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., not sitting.
# EUR-Lex - 52003XC0311(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52003XC0311(02)

**List of Member States' authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with ionising radiation (According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation) (This text cancels and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 174 of 20 July 2002, p. 3) **

*
Official Journal C 056 , 11/03/2003 P. 0005 - 0005 *

List of Member States' authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with ionising radiation

(According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation)

(This text cancels and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 174 of 20 July 2002, p. 3)

(2003/C 56/03)

>TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: cekautzer@optonline.net [mailto:cekautzer@optonline.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:38 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, 

Candace Kautzer 

106 Strathmore Gardens 

Aberdeen, NJ 07747
EXHIBIT
23
































OHIO
EDISON COMPANY





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-153608-06) of Ohio Edison Company of our report dated February 28, 2008,
except as to the error correction described in Note 1 which is as of
November 24, 2008, relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.











PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP








Cleveland,
OH


November 24,
2008




























































































EXHIBIT
23
































THE
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-153608-05) of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company of our report
dated February 28, 2008, except as to the error correction described in Note 1
which is as of November 24, 2008, relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.











PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP








Cleveland,
OH


November 24,
2008











































































































EXHIBIT
23
































THE
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.
333-153608-04) of The Toledo Edison Company of our report dated February 28,
2008, except as to the error correction described in Note 1 which is as of
November 24, 2008, relating to the financial statements, which appears in
this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.











PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP








Cleveland,
OH


November 24,
2008








































































































EXHIBIT
23
































PENNSYLVANIA
ELECTRIC COMPANY





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-62295, 333-62295-01, 333-62295-02, and 333-153608-01) of Pennsylvania
Electric Company of our report dated February 28, 2008, except as to the
error correction described in Note 1 which is as of November 24, 2008, relating
to the financial statements, which appears in this Amendment No. 1 on Form
10-K/A.











PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP








Cleveland,
OH


November 24,
2008
§ 213.341 Initial inspection of new rail and welds. The track owner shall provide for the initial inspection of newly manufactured rail, and for initial inspection of new welds made in either new or used rail. A track owner may demonstrate compliance with this section by providing for: ( a ) *In-service inspection.* A scheduled periodic inspection of rail and welds that have been placed in service, if conducted in accordance with the provisions of § 213.339, and if conducted not later than 90 days after installation, shall constitute compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
( b ) *Mill inspection.* A continuous inspection at the rail manufacturer's mill shall constitute compliance with the requirement for initial inspection of new rail, provided that the inspection equipment meets the applicable requirements specified in § 213.339. The track owner shall obtain a copy of the manufacturer's report of inspection and retain it as a record until the rail receives its first scheduled inspection under § 213.339;
( c ) *Welding plant inspection.* A continuous inspection at a welding plant, if conducted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, and accompanied by a plant operator's report of inspection which is retained as a record by the track owner, shall constitute compliance with the requirements for initial inspection of new rail and plant welds, or of new plant welds made in used rail; and
( d ) *Inspection of field welds.* An initial inspection of field welds, either those joining the ends of CWR strings or those made for isolated repairs, shall be conducted not less than one day and not more than 30 days after the welds have been made. The initial inspection may be conducted by means of portable test equipment. The track owner shall retain a record of such inspections until the welds receive their first scheduled inspection under § 213.339.
( e ) Each defective rail found during inspections conducted under paragraph (a) or (d) of this section shall be marked with highly visible markings on both sides of the web and base and the remedial action as appropriate under § 213.337 will apply.
exv10w7



 








Exhibit 10.7




March 14, 2006




Michele Bergerac



Dear Michele:




     [Introductory language regarding 2005 results, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such language to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]



     The bonus plan for 2006 is based on the profit after-tax using a standard corporate tax rate.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	22.5%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	4,000,000	 
	30%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	5,500,000	 
	45%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	6,955,000	 
	65%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	8,375,000	 
	82%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	9,700,000	 
	100%

	 	of your cumulative salary if the company achieves an after-tax profit of
	 	$	11,000,000	 






     In addition, you will earn 12.5% of your cumulative salary if, in my opinion, you have met the
criteria outlined on the attached.



     The bonus period will be the fiscal months of February 2006 through January 2007. You must be
an active employee of Bakers Footwear Group at the time bonuses are paid to be eligible to receive
your bonus.



     We are excited about our business in the coming year. We hope it is profitable for all of our
shareholders and us.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Peter Edison
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Peter Edison





ss



[Attachment, regarding 2006 goals and objectives, omitted. The Company undertakes to furnish a
supplemental copy of such attachment to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.]
§ 227.105 Protection of employees. ( a ) A railroad shall provide appropriate protection for its employees who are exposed to noise, as measured according to § 227.103, that exceeds the limits specified in appendix A of this part.
( b ) In assessing whether exposures exceed 115 dB(A), as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section and appendix A to this part, the apparent source of the noise exposures shall be observed and documented and measurement artifacts may be removed.
( c ) Except as set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, exposure to continuous noise shall not exceed 115dB(A).
( d ) Exposures to continuous noise greater than 115 dB(A) and equal to or less than 120 dB(A) are permissible, provided that the total daily duration does not exceed 5 seconds.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FEDER AL TR ADE C OM M ISSION, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , DAVID KISSI, M ova

nt - Appe lla

nt, v. C OUNTR

YW IDE HOM E LOANS INC ., a c orporation; e t a l., De fe nda

nts, ERIC R . C ALLOWAY, C la im ant. No. 12-55209 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-04193-JFW -SS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** 

# FIL ED D EC 09 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. David Kissi a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r re je c ting his atte m pt to filea “ M otion for Re c onside ration” in the Fe de ra l Tra de C o m m ission’ s a c tion a lle ging tha

t de fe nda nts viola te d the Fe de ra l Tra d e C o m m ission Ac t. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo que stions of sta nding, a nd for a n a buse of disc re t ion the distric t c ourt’ s de c isions re ga rding m ana ge m e nt of litiga

tion. Pre m inge r v . Pe ak

e , 552 F.3d 757, 762 n.3, 769 n.11 (9th C ir. 2008). W e d i sm iss thea ppe a l for la c k

of sta nding. Kissi, who wa s not a

pa rty to the a c tion, la c ks sta

n ding to c h a l le nge the judgm e nt or to bring this a ppe a l. S e eC itibank Int’l v . C ollie r-Traino, Inc . , 809 F.2d 1438, 1440-41 (9th C ir. 1987) (a nonpa rty ha s sta nding to c ha lle nge or a

ppe a l a judgm e nt “ only

in e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta

nc e s,” whic h e xist whe re the nonpa rty pa rtic i pate d in proc e e dings be l ow a nd the e quitie s favor he a

ring the c ha lle n ge or a ppe a l). M ore o ve r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to file Kissi’ s m otion be c a

use Kissi subm

itte d it ove r a

y e ar a fte r the c a se ha d c lose d. Se e S. C al. Edison C

o. v . Ly nc h , 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th C i r. 2002) (“ Distric t c ourts have ‘ inhe re nt powe r’ to c ontrol the i r doc ke ts.” (c ita tion omitte d)). DISM I SSE D.

1 2 - 5 5 2 0 9 2
#### William Conselyea, *Appellant, v.*Dudley Blanchard and John H. O’Rourke, *Respondent, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment appealed from by plaintiff reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 44614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18489]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application to support the export of 
approximately $2.3 billion in U.S. petrochemical equipment and services 
to expand petrochemical production at an existing facility in India. 
The financed amount associated with the U.S. export contract is 
expected to total approximately $2 billion.
    The U.S. exports will enable the foreign buyer to increase its 
annual production of the following products: 550,000 metric tons of 
linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE); 400,000 metric tons of low 
density polyethylene (LDPE); 733,000 metric tons of monoethylene glycol 
(MEG); 1,800,000 metric tons of paraxylene (PX); and 152,000 metric 
tons of polypropylene (PP). Available information indicates the Indian 
petrochemical producer plans to sell its output as follows: the 
majority of LDPE will be consumed in India with the balance exported to 
China, Europe and Africa; about half of LLDPE production will be 
consumed in India with the remainder going to China, Europe and Africa; 
the entire MEG production will be consumed in India; the PX production 
will be exported to South and North East Asia; and the majority of the 
PP production will be consumed in India with the balance exported to 
China, Africa and Europe.
    Interested parties may submit comments on this application by email 
to economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
432, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Kathryn Hoff-Patrinos,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-18489 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```