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

From: jokelley@tds.net [mailto:jokelley@tds.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:15 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). Mental health is a health issue plain and simple. 

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, 

Joann Kelley 

4333 Crawford 

Madison, WI 53711
[Crim. No. 609.

Fourth Dist.

June 5, 1941.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ARNOLD FERNANDEZ, Appellant.

*803Albert D. Trujillo for Appellant.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and Burdette J. Daniels, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

MARKS, J.

This case comes before us on a motion to affirm the judgment under the provisions of section 1253 of the Penal Code.

The clerk’s transcript was filed on February 24, 1941, and the reporter’s transcript on April 11, 1941. The case was placed on the calendar of May 27, 1941, for argument. No argument was made and no brief has been filed on behalf of appellant. The motion must be granted.

The judgment and the order denying the new trial are affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Griffin, J., concurred.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:08 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 30, 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, 

Heidi Siegel 

4914 W. Conrad Ave 

Skokie, IL 60077
§ 23.59 What is the role of the statutory 10 percent goal in the ACDBE program? ( a ) The statute authorizing the ACDBE program provides that, except to the extent the Secretary determines otherwise, not less than 10 percent of concession businesses are to be ACDBEs.
( b ) This 10 percent goal is an aspirational goal at the national level, which the Department uses as a tool in evaluating and monitoring ACDBEs' opportunities to participate in airport concessions.
( c ) The national 10 percent aspirational goal does not authorize or require recipients to set overall or concession-specific goals at the 10 percent level, or any other particular level, or to take any special administrative steps if their goals are above or below 10 percent.
[70 FR 14508, Mar. 22, 2005, as amended at 89 FR 24962, Apr. 9, 2024]
EXHIBIT 99.1


                              MAMMATECH CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28,2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Henry
S. Pennypacker, President and Chief Executive Officer and Mary Bailey Sellers,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By:  /s/  Henry S. Pennypacker                        Dated: May 31, 2003
   -------------------------------
          Henry S. Pennypacker
          President,
          Chief Executive Officer

     /s/  Mary Bailey Sellers
   -------------------------------
          Mary Bailey Sellers
          Treasurer and
          Chief Financial Officer


This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.




                                      -12-
#### In the Matter of the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company, *Appellant, v.*Theophilia G. Townsend, *Respondent.*

Order affirmed, with costs. Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
#### § 209.317 Official record.

The notice of proposed disqualification, respondent's reply, exhibits, and verbatim record of testimony, if a hearing is held, and all pleadings, stipulations, and admissions filed and rulings and orders entered in the course of the proceeding shall constitute the exclusive and official record.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KUMAR SANT,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

Nos. 07-70766

 07-72497

Agency No. A072-117-464

MEMORANDUM

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Kumar Sant, a native and citizen

of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders

denying his motions to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1252. 

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, CanoFILED

JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
07-70766

Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), and we review de novo claims of

due process violations in immigration proceedings, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d

967, 971 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part petition No. 07-

70766 and we deny petition No. 07-72497.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sant’s motions to reconsider

because they were filed more than two years after the BIA’s October 1, 2002, order

summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the BIA within

30 days after the mailing of the decision), and Sant failed to establish grounds for

equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)

(equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of

deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159

(9th Cir. 2002).

We decline to reconsider Sant’s challenge to the IJ’s underlying adverse

credibility determination because this court already decided the issue in Sant v.

Ashcroft, No. 02-73433 (9th Cir. July 15, 2004). See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d

1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that under the “law of the case doctrine,”
3 07-70766

one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which another panel

has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

Finally, Sant’s due process claims fail because proceedings were not “so

fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” 

Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971.

No. 07-70766: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;

DISMISSED in part.

No. 07-72497: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 235.12 Additional required information-prints. ( a ) A print or prints, size 8 inches by 101 ⁄ 2 inches, or 81 ⁄ 2 inches by 11 inches, or folded to 8 inches by 101 ⁄ 2 inches or to 81 ⁄ 2 inches by 11 inches, shall be furnished with each application.
( b ) The print or prints shall be to scale or by indicated dimensions, using Association of American Railroads graphic symbols.
( c ) The following information shall be shown on the print or prints: ( 1 ) Present and proposed arrangement of tracks and signal facilities;
( 2 ) Name of carrier;
( 3 ) Operating division;
( 4 ) Place and State; and
( 5 ) Timetable directions of movements.
( d ) If stopping distances are involved, the following information shall also be shown: ( 1 ) Curvature and grade;
( 2 ) Maximum authorized speeds of trains; and
( 3 ) Length of signal control circuits for each signal indication displayed.
( e ) The following color scheme is suggested on prints: ( 1 ) Installations, relocations, and added signal aspects should be colored, preferably in yellow;
( 2 ) Removals, discontinuances, and abandonments should be colored, preferably in red; and
( 3 ) Existing facilities not pertinent to change proposed in application should be shown uncolored.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2130-0042)
#### ALGERNON S. SULLIVAN, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v*.*THE REMINGTON SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, RESPONDENT*.*

*Costs*— when *an executor or administrator cannot be required to give secwiiy for*— *Code of Civil Procedure, sec.*8271.

Section 3271 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizing the court, in its discretion, to require an executor or administrator to give security for costs, only applies to actions originally brought by or against an executor or administrator, and not to an action originally brought by the deceased, and simply revived in favor of his personal representatives.

*271Appeal from an order made at a Special Term, requiring the plaintiff to file security for costs.

*H.*Wehle, for the appellant.

*T.*Richardson, for the respondent.

Pee CüRIam :

The action was brought by the intestate in his lifetime to recover a demand claimed to have been owing to him from the defendant, and an issue was joined and a reference ordered and testimony taken before the referee, previous to the time of his decease. Since then the action has been revived in behajf of the plaintiff as administrator, and he has been required to give security for the defendant’s costs under the authority of section 3271 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But that section is manifestly inapplicable, and does not include an action brought by the intestate during his lifetime, and after his decease revived by his personal representative. It is only applicable to actions brought by or against an executor or administrator, and does not apply to an action simply revived in favor of such a personal representative.

The provision in this respect is similar in its terms to that relating to the recovery of costs in actions brought by administrators or executors, and that has been held not to include actions brought by the intestate or deceased in his lifetime, and subsequently revived in favor of the personal representative. *(Tindall*v. Jones, 19 How., 469; *Merritt*v. Thompson, 27 N. Y., 225.)

These statutes have been framed substantially in the same terms, and- that requires a similar construction to be given to both. And under the construction which by these authorities has been placed upon the provisions of the statute relating to costs, this section of the Code should not be extended to an action brought by the intestate in his lifetime and after his decease revived on behalf of his personal representative. The order accordingly was erroneous and should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Beady, P. J., and Daniels, J.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Chief Consolidated Mining Company;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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer 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))
for the small business issuer and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.
 Dated:  July 30, 2009
    /s/     Jeff BatesJeff Bates, Chief Financial
Officer
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, September 20, 1995 (118), Para 118.31 Enrolled Bill Signed]
[Page 1427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.118.31  enrolled bill signed

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Oversight, reported that that 
committee had examined and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of 
the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker:

       H.R. 402. An Act to amend the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act, and for other purposes.

  And then,
```
Order entered April 2 5 , 202 2

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00242 - CV No. 05 - 21 - 00373 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M. AND M.A.M., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 366 - 53554 - 2020 and 366 - 50778 - 2021 O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s April 20, 2022 opposed second motion for a sixty

- day extension of time to file his brief in each of these appeals. Appellee explains the extension is necessary , in part, because the reporter’s record is incomplete and h e “is in the process of trying to fund” the missing portion. We GRANT the motion to the extent we SUSPEND the briefing deadline. We ORDER appell ee to file, no later than May 5 , 2022, wr it ten verification he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the missing record. We caution appellee that failure to comply may result in the appeal being submitted on the record currently before the Court. /s/ ROBE RT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[112th Congress Public Law 233]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 1623]]

Public Law 112-233
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 2601 2nd Avenue 
    North, Billings, Montana, as the ``James F. Battin United States 
           Courthouse''. <<NOTE: Dec. 28, 2012 -  [S. 3311]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JAMES F. BATTIN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 
        2601 2nd Avenue North, Billings, Montana, shall be known and 
        designated as the ``James F. Battin United States Courthouse''.
            (2) Technical amendment.--The ``James F. Battin United 
        States Courthouse'' located at 315 North 26th Street, Billings, 
        Montana, shall no longer be known and designated as the ``James 
        F. Battin United States Courthouse''.

    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``James F. Battin United States Courthouse''.

    Approved December 28, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3311:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Sept. 21, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 19, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
```

[111th Congress Public Law 317]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3454]]

Public Law 111-317
111th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, and for 
       other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 2010 -  [H.J. Res. 105]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is further amended by 
striking the date specified in <<NOTE: Ante, p. 3063.>> section 106(3) 
and inserting ``December 21, 2010''.

    Approved December 18, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 105:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Dec. 17, considered and passed House and Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.365 Service lines: Location of valves. ( a ) *Relation to regulator or meter.* Each service-line valve must be installed upstream of the regulator or, if there is no regulator, upstream of the meter.
( b ) *Outside valves.* Each service line must have a shut-off valve in a readily accessible location that, if feasible, is outside of the building.
( c ) *Underground valves.* Each underground service-line valve must be located in a covered durable curb box or standpipe that allows ready operation of the valve and is supported independently of the service lines.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

TOWER ACCESS GROUP, LLC,

Respondent

v.

THE SOUTH UNION TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 338 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2014

No. 04-14-00283-CR

IN RE Martin FELAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 30, 2014, relator filed a motion for rehearing. The panel has considered the 

motion and it is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on July 15th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2005CR2635, styled The State of Texas v. Martin Felan, pending in the 

399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ray Olivarri presiding.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2257

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for employment

in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1995

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel

for employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of

the United States.

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

3 That, notwithstanding sections 12105, 12106, 12107, and

4 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of

5 the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883),

6 as applicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of the

7 Department in which the Coast Guard is operating may

8 issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel Char9 lotte K (Maryland certification number MN 1397AM).

Æ
Phone Record – September 22, 2010

EPA: Lisa Snapp

EDF: Vickie Patton, Sharon Stein, Kathryn Phillips

Red Mountain Group: Hilary Sinnamon

Subject: Fuel Economy Labeling Proposal

EDF discussed their appreciation of the transparency in the proposal, especially with respect to the 

market research.

In response to questions posed by EDF, discussed details of the proposal that are lacking in clarity, 

including applicability of the letter grade across vehicle technologies and what pieces of information are 

included on the various proposed labels.

Discussion of the market research and expert panel that fed into the proposed labels.

Questions about timing of public hearings and close of comment period.
#### Jacob E. Hogle, *Appellant, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bocees, J.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 18, 2020

No. 04-20-00107-CV

Douglas HEDRICK and Mark Hedrick,

Appellants

v.

JBRF, LLC; Lonestar Handguns, LLC, and Joshua Felker, August C. Golla, and Debra S. Golla,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-00267

Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ reply brief is due on December 22, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). Before the 

due date, Appellants filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief. 

Appellants’ motion is GRANTED. Appellants’ reply brief is due on January 11, 2021. 

See id. R. 38.6(d). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY