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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2465 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2465

 To establish 5-year terms for, and require the advice and consent of 
  the Senate in the appointment of, the Director of the National Park 
                    Service, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 11, 1995

  Mr. Hansen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish 5-year terms for, and require the advice and consent of 
  the Senate in the appointment of, the Director of the National Park 
                    Service, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Park Service 
Professionalization Act''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

    The first section of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a 
National Park Service, and for other purposes'', approved August 25, 
1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1; commonly referred to as the ``National 
Park Service Organic Act''), is amended in the first sentence by 
striking ``who shall be appointed by the Secretary'' and all that 
follows and inserting ``who shall be appointed by the President, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a term of five years and 
may be appointed to one additional term of three years. The Director 
may be removed by the President only for cause. The Director shall have 
substantial experience and demonstrated competence in Federal park 
management and natural or cultural resource conservation.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICATION.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on February 1, 
1997, and shall apply with respect to the individual (if any) serving 
as the Director of the National Park Service on that date.
                                 <all>
```
#### Horace Greely NETHERY, Appellant, v. Richard O. CULVER, Custodian, Florida State Prison, Appellee.

No. 17317.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 18, 1958.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen. of Fla., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Fla., for appellee.

Before RIVES, TUTTLE and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant applied to the District Court for the Southern District of Florida for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting the invalidity of his conviction in the state court of Florida. The district court entered an order on April 7, 1958, denying the petition. Notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 1958. The notice of appeal was filed too late. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2107.

The district judge who entered the final order denying the petition also denied an application for a certificate of probable cause. We will regard the notice of appeal as an application to us for for a certificate of probable cause and having considered the same, we reach the same conclusion as did the district judge and the application for the certificate is denied.

Since the appeal was not taken within the prescribed time and since no certificate of probable cause has been issued, the appeal cannot be maintained and is therefore Dismissed.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:09 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 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, 

Joanne Klevens 

3204 Wanda Woods Dr. 

Atlanta, GA 30340
[Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche LLP]

 Deloitte &
 Touche LLP
____________                      _________________________________________
                                  Suite 900        Telephone (313) 396-3000
                                  600 Renaissance Center
                                  Detroit, Michigan  48243-1704




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64179, 33-55787, 33-55789 and 333-31093 of Chrysler Financial Corporation
(a subsidiary of Chrysler Corporation) on Form S-3 of our report dated
January 22, 1998 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chrysler
Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997.




s/ Deloitte & Touche L.L.P.
January 22, 1998







<PAGE>




                   THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
§ 240.211 Procedures for making the determination on performance skills. ( a ) Each railroad, prior to initially certifying or recertifying any person as an engineer for any class of train or locomotive service, shall determine that the person has demonstrated, in accordance with the requirements of § 240.127 of this part, the skills to safely operate locomotives or locomotives and trains, including the proper application of the railroad's rules and practices for the safe operation of locomotives or trains, in the most demanding class or type of service that the person will be permitted to perform.
( b ) In order to make this determination, a railroad shall have written documentation showing the person either: ( 1 ) Exhibited his or her knowledge by achieving a passing grade in testing that complies with this part; or
( 2 ) Did not achieve a passing grade in such testing.
( c ) If a person fails to achieve a passing score under the testing and evaluation procedures required by this part, no railroad shall permit or require that person to operate a locomotive as a locomotive or train service engineer prior to that person's achieving a passing score during a reexamination of his or her performance skills.
( d ) No railroad shall permit a designated supervisor of locomotive engineers to test, examine or evaluate his or her own performance skills when complying with this section.
[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 74 FR 68184, Dec. 23, 2009; 85 FR 81314, Dec. 15, 2020]
From: Larry Newman [mailto:lar.newman@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 1:36 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 opposition

I'm against the DOL proposal RIN 1210-AB32 and have informed my representatives to 

continue to oppose it.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60474

Summary Calendar

 

KILOCHO MALUMALU AHMED,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 105 455

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kilocho Malumalu Ahmed petitions this court for review of

the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under

the provisions of the Convention Against Torture. 

When, as here, the BIA summarily affirms without opinion and

essentially adopts the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s

decision. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). 
No. 03-60474

-2-

Because Ahmed’s brief does not address the IJ’s findings on

withholding of removal or withholding under the provisions of the

Convention Against Torture, we do not review them. See Soadjede

v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Ahmed argues that the IJ erred in determining that he did

not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on his past

membership in a now-defunct political party and his refusal to

join the Congolese military. Based upon our review of the

record, we conclude that the IJ’s ultimate determination is

supported by substantial evidence and is reasonable. See

Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Ahmed has not shown that the evidence compels a finding that he

would face persecution on a protected ground. See Girma v. INS,

283 F.3d 664, 667, 669 (5th Cir. 2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)

(a refugee is unwilling or unable to return because of

persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”).

The petition for review is DENIED.
Second Amendment to the 2003 Plan, effective as of January 26, 2006



 Exhibit 10.7.4 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 THE ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION 
 2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2003 Equity Incentive
Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of January 26, 2006 (the “Effective Date”) with respect to all Options (as defined in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including grants outstanding before the Effective
Date, as set forth below. 
 1. The last two sentences of Section 6(j)(2) of the Plan are hereby amended and restated in their entirety
to read as follows: 
 “Following the Acceleration Event, the Committee may provide for the cancellation of all Options then outstanding.
Upon such cancellation, the Corporation shall make, in exchange for each such Option, a payment either in (i) cash; (ii) shares of the successor entity; or (iii) some combination of cash or shares thereof, at the discretion of the
Committee, and in each case in an amount per share subject to such Option equal to the difference between the per share exercise price of such Option and the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date during the prior sixty-day period
that produces the highest Fair Market Value.” 
 Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
-----Original Message----- 

From: gkminder@comcast.net [mailto:gkminder@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:08 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, 

Gail Giacomini 

1299 Parkwood Drive 

Novato, CA 94947
From: david@dekafilm.com [mailto:david@dekafilm.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:26 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, 

David Abramson 

2024 Federal Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90025
§ 238.319 Running brake test. ( a ) As soon as conditions safely permit, a running brake test shall be performed on each passenger train after the train has received, or was required under this part to have received, either a Class I, Class IA, or Class II brake test.
( b ) A running brake test shall be performed whenever the control stand used to control the train is changed to facilitate the movement of a passenger train from one track to another within a terminal complex while not in passenger service.
( c ) The running brake test shall be conducted in accordance with the railroad's established operating rules, and shall be made by applying brakes in a manner that allows the engineer to ascertain whether the brakes are operating properly.
( d ) If the engineer determines that the brakes are not operating properly, the engineer shall stop the train and follow the procedures provided in § 238.15.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08534]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Procedural Manual for the Election Assistance Commission's Voting 
System Testing and Certification Program, Version 2.0

AGENCY: United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

ACTION: Notice; publication of Voting System Testing and Certification 
Manual, Version 2.0, for 30 day public comment period on EAC Web site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is publishing a 
procedural manual for its Voting System Testing and Certification 
Program. This manual sets the administrative procedures for obtaining 
an EAC Certification for voting systems. Participation in the program 
is strictly voluntary. The program is mandated by the Help America Vote 
Act (HAVA) at 42 U.S.C. 15371.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Background. HAVA requires that the EAC certify and decertify voting 
systems. Section 231(a)(1) of HAVA (42 U.S.C. 15371) specifically 
requires the EAC to ``. . . provide for the testing, certification, 
decertification and recertification of voting system hardware and 
software by accredited laboratories.'' To meet this obligation, the EAC 
has created a voluntary program to test voting systems to Federal 
voting system standards. The Voting System Testing and Certification 
Manual, published below, will set the procedures for this program.
    EAC is required to submit the Testing and Certification Manual for 
approval in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
requirements. The Testing and Certification Division has updated 
sections of the manual to reflect proposed changes in certification 
procedures.
    Comments. This notice is published in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, to request comments regarding the burden of 
responding to the information collection activities of the proposed 
manual; please refer to the EAC's Web site, www.eac.gov, for further 
information about the submission of comments regarding burden.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this draft procedural 
manual on or before 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments via email to VotingSystemGuidelines@eac.gov; 
via mail to Jessica Myers, Certification Program Specialist, U.S. 
Election Assistance Commission, 1335 East West Highway, Suite 4300, 
Silver Spring, MD, 20910; or via fax to 202-566-1392. An electronic 
copy of the proposed manual may be found on the EAC's Web site http://www.eac.gov/open/comment.aspx.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Hancock, Director, Voting System 
Certification, Washington, DC, (202) 566-3100, Fax: (202) 566-1392.

Bryan Whitener,
Director of Communications and Clearinghouse, U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-08534 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 17, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EARL CROWNHART,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

McINTYRE RENTALS,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 20-1158

(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01010-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Pro se litigant, Earl Crownhart, appeals the district court’s dismissal of the

civil action he filed against Defendant McIntyre Rentals in the District Court for

*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.
the District of Colorado. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice,

noting it has permanently enjoined Crownhart from filing pro se civil actions in

Colorado District Court without first obtaining permission from the court. See

Crownhart v. Suthers, et al., No. 13-cv-00959 (D. Colo. June 14, 2013); see also

In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding federal courts have the

inherent power pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to impose filing restrictions on

abusive litigants). Because Crownhart did not comply with the terms of the

sanction order, the court dismissed his complaint.

A district court’s application of a previously-imposed filing restriction is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Peterson, 338 F. App’x 763, 764

(10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value).

After reviewing the record, the appellate brief, and the applicable law, we affirm

the dismissal of Crownhart’s complaint. Although Crownhart argues on appeal

that he sought permission from the district court before filing his civil action,

nothing in the record supports this assertion. Accordingly, Crownhart has failed

to show compliance with the filing restrictions.

Because Crownhart’s appeal is wholly frivolous, we deny his motion to

-2-
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind Crownhart he is responsible for

the immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee. All

outstanding motions are denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

-3-
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSynthetic Aperture Radar Imagery of Airports and Surrounding Areas: Denver Stapleton International AirportThis is the third in a series of three reports which address the statistical description of ground clutter at an airport and in the surrounding area. These data are being utilized in a program to detect microbursts. Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data were collected at the Denver Stapleton Airport using a set of parameters which closely match those which are anticipated to be utilized by an aircraft on approach to an airport. These data and the results of the clutter study are described. Scenes of 13 x 10 km were imaged at 9.38 GHz and HH-, VV-, and HV-polarizations, and contain airport grounds and facilities (up to 14 percent), cultural areas (more than 50 percent), and rural areas (up to 6 percent). Incidence angles range from 40 to 84 deg. At the largest depression angles the distributed targets, such as forest, fields, water, and residential, rarely had mean scattering coefficients greater than -10 dB. From 30 to 80 percent of an image had scattering coefficients less than -20 dB. About 1 to 10 percent of the scattering coefficients exceeded 0 dB, and from 0 to 1 percent above 10 dB. In examining the average backscatter coefficients at large angles, the clutter types cluster according to the following groups: (1) terminals (-3 dB), (2) city and industrial (-7 dB), (3) warehouse (-10 dB), (4) urban and residential (-14 dB), and (5) grass (-24 dB).Document ID19900014941Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsOnstott, Robert G.*(Environmental Research Inst. of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI, United States)*Gineris, Denise J.*(Environmental Research Inst. of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-4305NAS 1.26:4305DOT/FAA/DS-89/16Accession Number90N24257Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-18465PROJECT: RTOP 505-67-41-57Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900014941.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Docket: CMS-2009-0040 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: CMS-2009-0040-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: CMS-2009-0040-0015 

PA-Mary Murphy 

Submitter Information 

Name: MARY MURPHY 

Address: 

PITTSBURGH, PA, 15233 

Organization: MENTAL HEALTH PATIENT 

General Comment 

I DO NOT AGREE WITH LIMITING MENTAL HEALTH INSURANCE. THESE 

PEOPLE NEED THEIR MEDICATION. HAS ANYONE SEEN WANT HAPPENS 

TO A SCHIZOPHRENIC WHO STOPS TAKING THEIR MEDICATION? tHEY CAN 

GET VERY VIOLENT. MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS NEED THEIR MEDICATION 

SO THEY NEED TO HAVE THE INSURANCE!

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 12, 2009 

Received: May 08, 2009 

Status: Posted 

Posted: May 11, 2009 

Category: Other - Academic 

Tracking No. 8097e8a2 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-1707

WILBERT W. KELLY,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JOANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Selya, Lynch and Howard,

Circuit Judges.

Francis M. Jackson and Jackson & MacNichol on brief for

appellant.

Paula Silsby, United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba,

Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration, and

Eskunder Boyd, Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney on brief for

appellee.

March 22, 2005
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the briefs

and record on appeal, we affirm for substantially the reasons

stated in the magistrate's report and adopted by the district

court. Among other problems, the appellant made no showing of

documented, severe mental impairment. Substantial evidence

supported the determination that his mental capacity was not

significantly limited. Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Servs., 647 F.2d 218 (1st Cir. 1981). He also made no showing

that the record cast doubt on his ability to perform light

work. An ALJ may render "common-sense judgments about

functional capacity." Gordils v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Serv., 921 F.2d 327, 329 (1st Cir. 1990). 

Finally, the appellant failed to preserve the issue

of the ALJ's duty to develop the record. Passing allusion to

the issue does not suffice. Keating v. Sec'y of Health & Human

Serv., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988).

Affirmed. 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-2-