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

From: bethrtc@hotmail.com [mailto:bethrtc@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:55 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Beth Cullison 

4910 54th Ave S 

Seattle, WA 98118
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          27,823
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             588
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,905
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    103,759
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         114,018
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           113,786
<LOANS>                                        424,250
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 713,855
<DEPOSITS>                                     623,438
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,255
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,881
<LONG-TERM>                                     23,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,360
<COMMON>                                           591
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 713,855
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,458
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,071
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                23,529
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,065
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,195
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,269
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      150
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (843)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,172
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,172
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,712
<EPS-BASIC>                                      12.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    12.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                        272
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,632
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,188
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      155
<RECOVERIES>                                       168
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,351
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,351
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

    

**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 PHI GROUP, INC. on Form 10-Q for the period ending December  31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry Fahman, President and Director 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief: (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. 

/s/ Henry Fahman

Henry Fahman

President/Director 

February 12, 2010

 

 

----
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:45 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Brianna Nelson 

1149 N 93rd Street 

Seattle, WA 98103
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 1 8

- BS

- 47 5

IN RE ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ

, Respondent. Board Docket No. 1 8

- B D

- 03 2 Bar Registration No. 477829 D DN: 312

- 1 7

BEFORE: Fisher and Beckwith , Associate Judges, and Farrell

, Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

– May 17 , 201 8 )

On consideration of the affidavit of Alexander Fernandez , wherein he

consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of

Rule XI of the Rules of the District of Columbia Cou rt of Appeals Governing the

District of Columbia Bar , which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is this 17 th day of May 201 8

,

ORDERED that the said Alex ander Fernandez is hereby disbarred by consent, effective forthwith. The effective date of respondent’s disbarment shall run, for reinstatement purposes, from the date respondent files his affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14 (g).

The Clerk sha ll publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent

.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman

of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply

therewith.

PER CURIAM 05/1 7 /2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    APR-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             4,916,041
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,199,758
<ALLOWANCES>                          26,000
<INVENTORY>                        1,381,674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   7,476,333
<PP&E>                             4,735,364
<DEPRECIATION>                     3,999,606
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     8,829,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,009,823
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                          375,000
<COMMON>                             401,219
<OTHER-SE>                         7,043,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       7,819,736
<SALES>                            1,773,377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,773,377
<CGS>                              1,087,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,087,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,431,090
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (708,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (708,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (708,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.10)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2013 WY 78

 April Term, A.D. 2013

 June 26, 2013

JERRY LEE HOCH,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-13-0017

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification

that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant

to a plea agreement, Appellant entered a “no contest” plea to one count of second degree 

murder. Shortly after the “Judgment and Sentence” was entered, Appellant filed a postsentence motion to withdraw his plea. On December 12, 2012, the district court entered 

its “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea.” Appellant took this appeal to challenge 

that order. On March 25, 2013, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a 

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 

87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Following a careful review of the record 

and the “Anders brief” submitted by counsel, this Court, on April 23, 2013, entered its 

“Order Granting Permission for Court Appointed Counsel to Withdraw.” That Order 

notified Appellant that the District Court’s “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea”

would be affirmed unless, on or before June 7, 2013, Appellant filed a brief that 

persuaded this Court that the captioned appeal is not wholly frivolous. Taking note that 

Appellant, Jerry Lee Hoch, has not filed a brief or other pleading within the time allotted, 

the Court finds that the district court’s “Order Denying Motion to Withdraw Plea” should 

be affirmed. It is, therefore, 
[¶2] ORDERED that the District Court’s December 12, 2012, “Order Denying Motion 

to Withdraw Plea” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶3] DATED this 26

th

day of June, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MARILYN S. KITE

Chief Justice
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental health Services Administration
 Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
                    ( print page 42421) Proposed Project: Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records—(OMB No. 0930-0092)—Revision Statute (42 U.S.C. 290dd-2) and regulations (42 CFR Part 2) require federally conducted, regualted, or directly or indirectly assisted alcohol and drug abuse programs to keep alcohol and drug abuse patient records confidential. Information requirements are (1) written disclosure to patients about Federal laws and regulations that protect the confidentiality of each patient, and (2) documenting “medical personnel” status of recipients of a disclosure to meet a medical emergency. Annual burden estimates for these requirements are summarized in the table below: Annualized Burden Estimates
Annual 
                             number of  
                             
                                respondents 1
Responses per 
                             respondent
Total 
                             responses
Hours per 
                             response
Total hour 
                             burdenDisclosure:42 CFR 2.22
10,629
174
2
                             1,849,548
.20
369,910Recordkeeping:42 CFR 2.51
10,629
2
21,258
.167
3,550Total
10,629

1,870,806

373,4601
                         The number of publicly funded alcohol and drug facilities from SAMHSA's 2005 National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS).2
                         The number of treatment admissions from SAMHSA's 2005 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS).
 Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by September 4, 2007 to: SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974. Dated: July 30, 2007. Elaine Parry, Acting Director, Office of Program Services.


[FR Doc. 07-3769 Filed 8-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-M
#### Richard Burke, *as Admimistrator, etc. Respondent, v.*Silas H. Witherbee and others, *Appellants.*

— Judgment affhmed, with costs. • Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
§ 211.9 Content of rulemaking and waiver petitions. Each petition for rulemaking or waiver must: ( a ) Set forth the text or substance of the rule, regulation, standard or amendment proposed, or specify the rule, regulation or standard that the petitioner seeks to have repealed or waived, as the case may be;
( b ) Explain the interest of the petitioner, and the need for the action requested; in the case of a petition for waiver, explain the nature and extent of the relief sought, and identify and describe the persons, equipment, installations and locations to be covered by the waiver;
( c ) Contain sufficient information to support the action sought including an evaluation of anticipated impacts of the action sought; each evaluation shall include an estimate of resulting costs to the private sector, to consumers, and to Federal, State and local governments as well as an evaluation of resulting benefits, quantified to the extent practicable. Each petition pertaining to safety regulations must also contain relevant safety data.
-----Original Message----- 

From: marymac33@aol.com [mailto:marymac33@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:47 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, 

Mary McCarthy 

33 Champney St 

Brighton, MA 02135
EXHIBIT 23.1 - CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-32241) of Compositech Ltd. and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated February 12, 1999, except for Note 15 as to which the date is March
26, 1999, with respect to the financial statements of Compositech Ltd. included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 1998.



                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Melville, New York
March 31, 1999
NO. 07-05-0219-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 17, 2005

______________________________

CHRISTOPHER LEE CROSS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B15,360-0402; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dismissal

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Christopher Lee Cross (appellant) appealed from his conviction for possessing a

controlled substance. Because appellant had not filed a brief, we abated and remanded

the cause to the 64th District Court of Hale County (trial court). The latter convened a

hearing attended by appellant and his counsel. At the proceeding, appellant informed the

trial court that he no longer cared to prosecute the appeal. The trial court found this
decision to be knowing and voluntary. Furthermore, it along with appellant's

representations were memorialized in a supplemental clerk's record filed with this court.

Although we have no motion to dismiss before us as required by Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), Rule 2 of the same rules permits us to suspend the operation

of an existing rule. TEX. R. APP. P. 2; see Rodriguez v. State, 970 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Tex.

App.–Amarillo 1998, pet. ref'd). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2, and because appellant has

clearly revealed his desire to forego appeal, we suspend Rule 42.2(a) and dismiss the

appeal based upon appellant's representation to the trial court.

Having so dismissed the appeal, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
§ 130.135 Training. ( a ) A railroad must certify in the response plan that it has conducted training to ensure that: ( 1 ) All railroad employees subject to the plan know— ( i ) Their responsibilities under the comprehensive oil spill response plan; and
( ii ) The name of, and procedures for contacting, the qualified individual or alternate on a 24-hour basis;
( 2 ) All railroad employees with responsibilities as reporting personnel in the plan also know— ( i ) The content of the information summary of the response plan;
( ii ) The toll-free telephone number of the National Response Center; and
( iii ) The notification process required by § 130.105; and
( 3 ) The qualified individual or, as an alternative, the person acting in an Incident Commander role, may be trained in the Incident Command System at the Incident Commander Level.
( b ) Employees subject to this section must be trained at least once every five years or, if the plan is revised during the five-year recurrent training cycle, within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan. New employees must be trained within 90 days of employment or change in job function.
( c ) Each railroad must create and retain records of current training of each railroad employee engaged in oil spill response, inclusive of the preceding five years, in accordance with this section, for as long as that employee is employed and for 90 days thereafter. A railroad must make the employee's record of training available upon request, at a reasonable time and location, to an authorized official of the Department of Transportation. The record must include all of the following: ( 1 ) The employee's name;
( 2 ) The completion date of the employee's most recent training;
( 3 ) The name and address of the person providing the training; and
( 4 ) A certification statement that the designated employee has been trained, as required by this subpart.
( d ) Nothing in this section relieves a person from the responsibility to ensure that all personnel are trained in accordance with other regulations. As an example, response personnel may be subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for emergency response operations in 29 CFR 1910.120, including volunteers or casual laborers employed during a response who are subject to those standards pursuant to 40 CFR part 311. Hazmat employees, as defined in § 171.8 of this chapter, are subject to the training requirements in subpart H of part 172 of this chapter, including safety training.
§ 220.315 Operational tests and inspections; further restrictions on use of electronic devices. ( a ) The railroad's program of operational tests and inspections under part 217 of this chapter shall be revised as necessary to include this subpart and shall specifically include a minimum number of operational tests and inspections, subject to adjustment as appropriate.
( b ) When conducting a test or inspection under part 217 of this chapter, a railroad officer, manager, or supervisor is prohibited from calling the personal electronic device or the railroad-supplied electronic device used by a railroad operating employee while the railroad officer, manager, or supervisor knows or should have known that— ( 1 ) The train to which the employee is assigned is moving;
( 2 ) The employee is— ( i ) On the ground;
( ii ) Riding rolling equipment during switching operations; or
( iii ) Assisting in preparation of the train to which the employee is assigned for movement.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent, *v.*Edward P. Barker et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.

*People ex rel. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co.*v. *Barker,*121 App. Div. 661, affirmed.

(Submitted November 14, 1910;

decided November 29, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 29, 1907, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating the assessment of the capital stock of the relator for the year 1897.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Curtis A. Peters*of counsel), for appellants.

*Joseph P. Cotton, Jr.,*and *George Rublee*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Ingraham, J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Not sitting: Gray, J.