alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 49286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4217]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committe Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or comercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Randomized Warfarin Therapy Trial.
    Date: September 17, 2007.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel Washington, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-0725, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147e7b7c7a677b7a637e547a7c78767d3a7a7d7c3a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1dbded9dfc2dedfc6dbf1dfd9ddd3d89fdfd8d99fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Research Development and Dissemination 
Projects (R18 and R21).
    Date: September 24, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Holly Patton, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-0280, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acdccdd8d8c3c2c4ecc2c4c0cec582c2c5c482cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25554451514a4b4d654b4d49474c0b4b4c4d0b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutues of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4217 Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:40 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, 

Brooks Elms 

22319 Gifford Street 

Canoga Park, CA 91303
EXHIBIT 32.2





**Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.** § **1350)**





The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.





Dated this 9th day of November, 2004.








***/s/ Donald J. Torbert, Jr***


Donald J. Torbert, Jr.


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(principal financial officer of the registrant)
NO. 07-03-0246-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

AUGUST 14, 2003

______________________________

BILLIE F. MCKINNON, APPELLANT

V.

TEXAS REHABILITATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 72ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2002-520,011; HONORABLE J. BLAIR CHERRY, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Billie F. McKinnon, appellant, attempts to appeal the trial court’s Order Granting

Summary Judgment. For the reasons expressed herein, we dismiss the appeal. 

Unless a party is excused from paying such fees, the clerk of the court of appeals

must collect any filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court. Tex. R. App. P. 5 and

12.1(b). The appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days notice to all parties,
2

may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

Dismissal may occur if the appeal is subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(b). Dismissal may also occur because the appellant has failed to comply with

a requirement of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, a court order, or a notice from the clerk

requiring a response or other action within a specified time. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

By letter dated May 21, 2003, the clerk notified the parties that the Notice of Appeal

had been received but that the $125.00 filing fee in this appeal had not been paid. The

clerk also notified the parties that no further action would be taken on the appeal until the

fee was paid and that failure to pay the fee might result in dismissal. Neither party

responded to this notice and the fee remained unpaid. 

No filing fee has been paid to date. No records have been filed in this matter and

appellant has not filed a brief. There has been no indication that the parties wish to pursue

the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response within ten days.

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice
#### § 199.111 [Reserved]
#### § 260.33 Information requests.

If an Applicant desires that any information submitted in its application or any supplement thereto not be released by the Administrator upon request from a member of the public, the Applicant must so state and must set forth any reasons why such information should not be released, including particulars as to any competitive harm which would probably result from release of such information. The Administrator will keep such information confidential to the extent permitted by law.
A00A2352.

#### CODY v. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE CORPORATION.

(546 SE2d 299)

Andrews, Presiding Judge.

Channon R. Cody appeals from the trial court’s order granting Coldwell Banker Real Estate Corporation’s motion to dismiss her appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) for an unreasonable delay in the filing of the transcript.

The trial court simply granted the motion without elaboration and failed to make the necessary findings as to whether the delay was unreasonable, inexcusable, and caused by Cody. *Dalton v. Vo,*224 Ga. App. 382 (480 SE2d 377) (1997). In making these necessary findings, a trial court exercises a legal discretion which we review only for abuse. *Wood v. Notte,*238 Ga. App. 748, 749 (519 SE2d 923) (1999). Because the trial court did not make the necessary findings, we are unable to determine whether the trial court properly exer*181cised its discretion in dismissing the appeal. *Dalton,*224 Ga. App. at 383; *Wood,*238 Ga. App. at 749.

Decided February 21, 2001.

*Arthur F. Millard,*for appellant.

*Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Charles B. Waters, Jr., Alicia E. Coleman, King, Taylor & Stovall, James F. Stovall III,*for appel-

Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order dismissing the appeal and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to make the necessary findings.

*Judgment vacated and case remanded.*

*Ruffin and Ellington, JJ, concur.*
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 28, 1995 (122), Para 122.29 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1466]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.122.29  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. SKEEN: Committee of Conference. Conference report on 
     H.R. 1976. A bill making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 104-268). Ordered to 
     be printed.
       Mrs. MEYERS: Committee of Conference. Conference report on 
     S. 895. An Act to amend the Small Business Act to reduce the 
     level of participation by the Small Business Administration 
     in certain loans guaranteed by the Administration, and for 
     other purposes (Rept. No. 104-269). Ordered to be printed.
```
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:06 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 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, 

Russell Huffman 

634 Mapledale Rd. 

White Sulphur Springs, WV 24986
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 4/29/15 10:43 AM

Received: April 27, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ij7-swio

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0244

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: VICTORIA BACH-FINK

Address: 

WALL STREET FINANCIAL GROUP

255 WOODCLIFF DRIVE

FAIRPORT, 14450

Email: VBACHFINK@WSFG.COM

Phone: 585-267-8000

General Comment

To Whom It May Concern:

We are a Registered Broker Dealer and a Registered Investment Advisor dual registrant firm. 

We are requesting that you extend the comment period for the fiduciary proposal to 120 days. 

We need time to analyze how the rule will impact our clients, our advisors, and our business 

practices in general for multiple departments, especially within the IRA sphere. 

We want to be able to provide you with thoughtful, constructive commentary that will help you 

in your review of the proposal.

The length and complexity of the proposal create an atmosphere where if we are rushed to reply 

we can not accomplish either of the above. A 75 day comment period is just not enough for us 

to vet through how this will effect everyone involved in our organization, including our smaller 

clientele.

Thank you for your consideration of our thoughts.

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481abdabb&format=xml&show... 4/29/2015
Best,

Victoria Bach-Fink

President/CEO

Wall Street Financial Group, Inc.

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481abdabb&format=xml&show... 4/29/2015
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday October 26, 1995 (135), Para 135.16 Permission to File Conference Report]
[Page 1797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.135.16  permission to file conference report

  On motion of Mr. CALLAHAN, by unanimous consent, the managers on the 
part of the House were granted permission until midnight tonight to file 
a conference report (Rept. No. 104-295) on the bill (H.R. 1868) making 
appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes; together with a statement thereon, for printing in the Record 
under the rule.
```
#### § 236.514 Interconnection of cab signal system with roadway signal system.

The automatic cab signal system shall be interconnected with the roadway-signal system so that the cab signal indication will not authorize operation of the train at a speed higher than that authorized by the indication of the roadway signal that governed the movement of a train into a block except when conditions affecting movement of trains in the block change after the train passes the signal.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jorge Tomas Pina

- Salazar , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00019

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 21F0383

- 102 ). Memo randum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial c ourt ’s judgment he rein by strik ing

the entire line that begins “ THIS SENTENC E SH ALL RUN

. ” As modified, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Jorge Tomas Pina

- Salazar , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs o f appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 12, 2022 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
#### Susan Lenhart, *Administratrix, Respondent, v.*The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.—

Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Barker, J., not voting.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 08, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 08, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0309. MARCO DEVON JILES v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 04CR2050
§ 179.1 General. ( a ) This part prescribes the specifications for tanks that are to be mounted on or form part of a tank car and which are to be marked with a DOT specification.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, tanks to which this part is applicable, must be built to the specifications prescribed in this part.
( c ) Tanks built to specifications predating those in this part may continue in use as provided in § 180.507 of this subchapter.
( d ) Any person who performs a function prescribed in this part, shall perform that function in accordance with this part.
( e ) When this part requires a tank to be marked with a DOT specification (for example, DOT-105A100W), compliance with that requirement is the responsibility of the tank builder. Marking the tank with the DOT specification shall be understood to certify compliance by the builder that the functions performed by the builder, as prescribed in this part, have been performed in compliance with this part.
( f ) The tank builder should inform each person to whom that tank is transferred of any specification requirements which have not been met at time of transfer.
[Amdt. 179-17, 41 FR 38183, Sept. 9, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 179-50, 60 FR 49076, Sept. 21, 1995; 68 FR 48571, Aug. 14, 2003]
#### § 262.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to carry out the statutory mandate set forth in 49 U.S.C. 20154 requiring the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations implementing a capital grants program to provide financial assistance for local rail line relocation and improvement projects.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHIRON
CORPORATION'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          53,967
<SECURITIES>                                    75,832<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  340,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    186,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               680,686
<PP&E>                                         744,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                 193,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,668,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          463,297
<BONDS>                                        420,044<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     745,737<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,668,256
<SALES>                                        729,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               943,035
<CGS>                                          316,973
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  316,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               562,392<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,792<F5>
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,916
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             39,876
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    39,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
<FN>
<F1>CONSISTS OF BOTH SHORT-TERM AND NON-CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN MARKETABLE DEBT
SECURITIES.
<F2>CONSISTS OF CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES, CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS, AND
NOTES PAYABLE, NET OF CURRENT MATURITIES.
<F3>CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL, ACCUMULATED DEFICIT, CUMULATIVE FOREIGN
CURRENCY TRANSLATION ADJUSTMENT AND UNREALIZED GAIN FROM INVESTMENTS.
<F4>CONSISTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SELLING, GENREAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE; AND
OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.
<F5>INCLUDES A $12.2 MILLION GAIN FROM THE SALE OF A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST REFLECTED
IN OTHER EXPENSE, NET; AND $6.9 MILLION IN ROYALTIES RELATED TO PRIOR
PERIOD SALES RESULTING FROM A SETTLEMENT, REFLECTED IN EQUITY IN EARNINGS OF
UNCONSOLIDATED JOINT BUSINESSES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 34.3


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of The Toledo Edison Company:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Asset-Backed Securities”, that The Toledo Edison Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving phase-in recovery property (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from June 20, 2013 to December 31, 2013, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i-iv), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), and 1122(d)(4)(i-v, vii, ix-xiii, xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2013 and for the period from June 20, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP








March 31, 2014