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

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, July 11, 1995 (92), Para 92.39 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.92.39  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Mr. WALKER: Committee on Science. H.R. 1175. A bill to 
     amend Public Law 89-454 to provide for the reauthorization of 
     appropriations; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-123 Pt. 2). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. LIVINGSTON: Committee on Appropriations. Report on the 
     Subdivision of Budget Totals For Fiscal Year 1996 (Rept. No. 
     104-175). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.
       Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 1091. A 
     bill to improve the National Park System in the Commonwealth 
     of Virginia; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-176). Referred 
     to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
     Union.
       Mr. WOLF: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 2002. A bill 
     making appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 104-177). Referred to 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. MOORHEAD: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 587. A bill 
     to amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to 
     patents on biotechnological processes (Rept. No. 104-178). 
     Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union.
       Mr. MOORHEAD: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1170. A bill 
     to provide that cases challenging the constitutionality of 
     measures passed by State referendum be heard by a 3-judge 
     court; with amendments (Rept. No. 104-179). Referred to the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
       Mr. MOORHEAD: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 464. An Act to 
     make the reporting deadlines for studies conducted in Federal 
     court demonstration districts consistent with the deadlines 
     for pilot districts, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 104-
     180). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.
       Mr. MOORHEAD: Committee on the Judiciary. S. 532. An Act to 
     clarify the rules governing venue, and for other purposes 
     (Rept. No. 104-181). Referred to the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the State of the Union.
       Ms. PRYCE: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 185. 
     Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1977) making appropriations for the Department of the 
     Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 104-
     182). Referred to the House Calendar.
```
§ 214.503 Good-faith challenges; procedures for notification and resolution. ( a ) An employee operating an on-track roadway maintenance machine or hi-rail vehicle shall inform the employer whenever the employee makes a good-faith determination that the machine or vehicle does not comply with FRA regulations or has a condition that inhibits its safe operation.
( b ) Any employee charged with operating an on-track roadway maintenance machine or hi-rail vehicle covered by this subpart may refuse to operate the machine or vehicle if the employee makes a good-faith determination that it does not comply with the requirements of this subpart or has a condition that inhibits its safe operation. The employer shall not require the employee to operate the machine or vehicle until the challenge resulting from the good-faith determination is resolved.
( c ) Each employer shall have in place and follow written procedures to assure prompt and equitable resolution of challenges resulting from good-faith determinations made in accordance with this section. The procedures shall include specific steps to be taken by the employer to investigate each good-faith challenge, as well as procedures to follow once the employer finds a challenged machine or vehicle does not comply with this subpart or is otherwise unsafe to operate. The procedures shall also include the title and location of the employer's designated official.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:06 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. 

Thank you for your time. 

Sincerely, 

Laurel Cohen 

1932 Old Colony Lane 

Maitland, FL 32751
§ 1544.409 Integrity of screener tests. ( a ) *Cheating or other unauthorized conduct.* ( 1 ) Except as authorized by the TSA, no person may— ( i ) Copy or intentionally remove a test under this part;
( ii ) Give to another or receive from another any part or copy of that test;
( iii ) Give help on that test to or receive help on that test from any person during the period that the test is being given; or
( iv ) Use any material or aid during the period that the test is being given.
( 2 ) No person may take any part of that test on behalf of another person.
( 3 ) No person may cause, assist, or participate intentionally in any act prohibited by this paragraph (a).
( b ) *Administering and monitoring screener tests.* ( 1 ) Each aircraft operator must notify TSA of the time and location at which it will administer each screener readiness test required under § 1544.405(d).
( 2 ) Either TSA or the aircraft operator must administer and monitor the screener readiness test. Where more than one aircraft operator or foreign air carrier uses a screening location, TSA may authorize an employee of one or more of the aircraft operators or foreign air carriers to monitor the test for a trainee who will screen at that location.
( 3 ) If TSA or a representative of TSA is not available to administer and monitor a screener readiness test, the aircraft operator must provide a direct employee to administer and monitor the screener readiness test.
( 4 ) An aircraft operator employee who administers and monitors a screener readiness test must not be an instructor, screener, screener-in-charge, checkpoint security supervisor, or other screening supervisor. The employee must be familiar with the procedures for administering and monitoring the test and must be capable of observing whether the trainee or others are engaging in cheating or other unauthorized conduct.
-----Original Message----- 

From: mae.frantz@gmail.com [mailto:mae.frantz@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:18 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, 

Mae Frantz 

PO Box 109 

El Portal, CA 95318
§ 211.73 Presiding officer; powers. ( a ) An administrative hearing for the review of an emergency order is presided over by the Administrator or by an administrative law judge designated at the request of FRA pursuant to 5 CFR 930.213.
( b ) The presiding officer may exercise the powers of the FRA to regulate the conduct of the hearing and associated proceedings for the purpose of achieving a prompt and fair determination of all material issues in controversy.
( c ) The final decision of the presiding officer shall set forth findings and conclusions based on the administrative record. That decision may set aside, modify or affirm the requirements of the emergency order under review.
( d ) Except as provided in § 211.77, the decision of the presiding officer is administratively final.
; Generated by FastSum - an extremely fast checksum utility.
; Go to www.fastsum.com to get your own copy for free.
;
5299FBF876E7EA6BCA61BE1DB813F96F *480149.pdf
5B2F544CF223F9257D72A37171A4687F *480190.pdf
6E1A4F16D8D4438DDDF9BF3BBBB44BDD *480235.pdf
63F2057C77D9032A46128B846603A1A5 *48080.pdf
725C3A721BA9285E985AE7432114E150 *480967.pdf
F614A93C80AB84D9519DFB9C03C90318 *481109.pdf
7457B186EAA932A01055AA517F69B1B7 *481152.pdf
-----Original Message----- 

From: ekridg@independence.net [mailto:ekridg@independence.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:30 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, Kaye Middleton 

Ridgway, CO. 

Sincerely, 

Kaye Middleton 

490 N. Cora St. 

Rodgway, CO 81432
Exhibit 10.2


            ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENT AND REAFFIRMATION OF GUARANTY

     Section 1. Guarantor hereby acknowledges and confirms that it has reviewed
and approved the terms and conditions of the Default Waiver. and First Amendment
to Loan and Security Agreement dated as of even date herewith (the "Amendment").

     Section 2. Guarantor hereby consents to the Amendment and agrees that the
Guaranty relating to the Obligations of Borrower under the Loan Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect, shall be valid and enforceable and shall not
be impaired or otherwise affected by the execution of the Amendment or any other
document or instrument delivered in connection herewith.

     Section 3. Guarantor represents and warrants that, after giving effect to
the Amendment. all representations and warranties contained in the Guaranty are
true. accurate and complete as if made the date hereof.

Dated as of March 6, 2006

GUARANTOR


                                          /s/ Thomas Sandgaard
                                          -------------------------
                                          Thomas Sandgaard
-----Original Message----- 

From: annette.wilson@goucher.edu [mailto:annette.wilson@goucher.edu] 

Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 9:56 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 02, 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, 

Annette Wilson 

2801 Goodwood Road 

Baltimore, MD 21214
#### Babb *v.*Babb.

The plaintiff, holding land by conveyance through a third person from her husband, and also claiming in the land a homestead against her husband’s creditors, no homestead having been assigned, cannot recover, by virtue of the homestead right, in an action of trespass *quare clausum*against her husband’s creditor, who has set off the land upon an execution in his favor.

If any recovery can be had, it must he upon the validity of the plaintiff’s title by the conveyance; and on a trial of the action the question of fraud in the conveyance is material.

Trespass *quare clausum.*The plaintiff claims title to the premises by deed from her husband through the intervention of a third person, and also a right of homestead against her husband’s creditors. No homestead has been assigned. The defendant’s title is *143tbe set-off of the land upon an execution in his favor against the husband; and the defendant claims that the conveyance to the plaintiff was voluntary and in fraud of her husband’s creditors. The jury were instructed that the plaintiff had a homestead right in the land of the value of $500, and if they should find the value of the land not to be greater than that sum, the question of fraud in the conveyance would be immaterial, and need not be considered, and the plaintiff could recover. The defendant moved to set the verdict aside, and for a new trial, on the ground of error in the instructions.

*J. C. Caverly*(with whom was *T. J. Smith),*for the defendant.

*Copeland 8f Edgerly,*for the plaintiff.

Allen, J.

The plaintiff cannot recover in this action on any claim of a homestead right in the land, the homestead not having been assigned; nor in this proceeding could the jury rightfully determine the value of the land. *Tidd*v. *Quinn,*52 N. H. 341, 343.

If the plaintiff can recover at all, it must be by virtue of her title derived from her husband’s conveyance in fee simple; and if that conveyance was in fraud of his creditors, her title fails without regard to the value of the land, and notwithstanding her homestead right. If the conveyance was not fraudulent, the plaintiff’s right of recovery would be clear. If fraudulent, though the question would then arise, whether, in spite of that fact, she would be entitled to a homestead on appropriate proceedings to assign and set it out, she could not recover in this action. The question of fraud in the conveyance was material upon the trial, and the instructions upon the subject were erroneous. The verdict is set aside, and a

*New trial granted.*

Blodgett, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
PUBLIC LAW 112–223—DEC. 28, 2012 126 STAT. 1603 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5738: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Nov. 28, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–223 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15285 

Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, as the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio 

Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CPL. ANTHONY A. DILISIO CLINTON-MACOMB CARRIER ANNEX. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 15285 Samohin Drive in Macomb, Michigan, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony A. 

DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier Annex’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Cpl. Anthony A. DiLisio Clinton-Macomb Carrier 

Annex’’. 

Approved December 28, 2012. 

Dec. 28, 2012 

[H.R. 5738] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAWS
##### 



COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2005
 ARTICLE I  Purpose and Adoption of Plan
 Adoption:
 Purpose:
 Purpose of 2005 Amendment and Restatement:
 ARTICLE II  Definitions




---



##### 



Code,
 former
      ARTICLE II.I  Administration of Plan




---



##### 



for




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV  Arbitration




---



##### 



party




---



##### 



ARTICLE V  Eligibility
   ARTICLE VI  Benefits




---



##### 



Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal,
     ARTICLE VII  Covenant Not to Compete, Non-Solicitation,  Non-Disclosure and Forfeiture




---



##### 








---



##### 



ARTICLE VIII  Nature of Employer Obligation and Participant Interest




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX  Miscellaneous Provisions




---



##### 



18th
 ATTEST:
    
    COMPASS BANCSHARES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Joseph B. Cartee
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Garrett R. HegelIts:Associate General Counsel
    
    
    
    Its:Chief Financial Officer
-----Original Message----- 

From: lisantony@embarqmail.com [mailto:lisantony@embarqmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:30 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, 

Lisa DiTommaso 

5648 Argenta Habitat 

Las Vegas, NV 89139
EXHIBIT 24.5
                      POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Central  Power  and  Light Company (the  "Company"),  hereby
makes,  constitutes and appoints R. Russell Davis  his  true
and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power and
authority  to  execute  in the name and  on  behalf  of  the
undersigned, in any and all capacities, the Company's Annual
Report  on  Form  10-K for 1995 and any and  all  amendments
thereto,  to be filed under the Securities Exchange  Act  of
1934,  as  amended, and any other documents and  instruments
incidental thereto, and to file the same, with all  exhibits
thereto and all documents in connection therewith, with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby granting to  such
attorney-in-fact,  and agent, full power  and  authority  of
substitution and revocation in the premises and  full  power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite  and  necessary  to  be  done  in  and  about  the
premises,  as  fully  for all intents and  purposes  as  the
undersigned might or could do in person and hereby ratifying
and  confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact  and  agent,
may  do  or  cause  to be done by virtue of  this  Power  of
Attorney.

IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto executed this Power  of
Attorney this 19th day of January, 1996.


                              Robert R. Carey






Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of  January,
1996 by Robert R. Carey.


                              Alice G. Crisp
                              Notary Public

My Commission Expires:
8-3-98
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1294V 

Filed: October 7, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

DONALD WELLS, 

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Jimmy A. Zgheib, Zgheib Sayad, P.C., White Plains, NY, for petitioner.

Adriana Ruth Teitel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On August 27, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on 

October 4, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit 

of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On October 4, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent has concluded that petitioner’s medical course is 

consistent with a SIRVA as defined by the Vaccine Injury Table. Id. at 5. Respondent 

further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

 Chief Special Master