alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.803 What happens if the Department determines that the Tribe has not corrected the conditions that the Department identified in the notice? ( a ) If the Department determines that the Tribe has not corrected the conditions that the Department identified in the notice, the Department must provide a second written notice by any method that provides receipt to the Tribe notifying it that the Department will terminate the compact or funding agreement, in whole or in part.
( b ) The second notice must include: ( 1 ) The effective date of the termination;
( 2 ) The details and facts supporting the termination; and
( 3 ) Instructions that explain the Tribe's right to a hearing pursuant to § 29.925.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:17 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, 

Scott Duncan 

3725 Embassy Circle 

Palm Harbor, FL 34685
EXHIBIT
10.24


 


Compensatory Arrangements with Non-Employee Directors


 


Each non-employee director of PLC Systems
Inc. (the “Company”) other than the Chairman of the Board receives $12,000 per
year and the Chairman of the Board receives $24,000 per year, paid in quarterly
installments. In addition, non-employee directors other than the Chairman of
the Board who serve as chairman of a committee, or who serve on more than one
committee, receive an additional $500 per quarter. The Company reimburses
directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings
of the Board of Directors and committees of the Board of Directors.


 


The Company grants stock
options to its non-employee directors. Generally, new non-employee directors
receive an initial grant of an option to purchase 30,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock that vests in installments over three years. Once the initial
grant has fully vested, non-employee directors other than the Chairman of the
Board receive an annual grant of an option to purchase 15,000 shares of the
Company’s common stock that vests in four equal quarterly installments. The
Chairman of the Board receives an annual grant of an option to purchase 30,000
shares of the Company’s common stock that vests in four equal quarterly
installments. All such options have an exercise price equal to the fair market
value of the common stock on the date of grant. The grants of options to
non-employee directors discussed above do not apply to Donald E. Bobo, Jr.
because he is a director as a result of the Company’s transaction with Edwards
Lifesciences LLC.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
(AMOUNTS IN 1,000'S, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
INCOME TAX EXPENSE INCLUDES $24,188,000 RELATED TO OTHER INCOME
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001031296
<NAME> FIRSTENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    9,573,210
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  2,307,102
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,002,991
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     5,197,492
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,080,795
<COMMON>                                        23,021
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    3,489,931
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            646,646
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               4,159,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          334,864
<PREFERRED>                                    660,195
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         6,969,835
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             182,245
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 119,984
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  374,401
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                       21,379
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                74,656
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,183,638
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               18,080,795
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    2,821,435
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           207,986
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,081,677
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,265,475
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        555,960
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              58,343
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 614,303
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       308,529
<NET-INCOME>                                   305,774
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       216,770
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      482,450
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         856,437
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94


</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 11:48 AM 

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, 

Bridget Shanahan 

PO Box 473 

Bisbee, AZ 85603
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 855

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel SKIMMER.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 2001

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

Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

SKIMMER.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

HR 855 IH

1 trade for the vessel SKIMMER, manufactured by

2 Contour Yachts, Inc. (hull identification number

3 QHG34031D001).

Æ
§ 271.307 Retention of RRP plans. ( a ) *Railroads.* A railroad shall retain at its system and division headquarters one copy of its RRP plan and each subsequent amendment to that plan. A railroad may comply with this requirement by making an electronic copy available.
( b ) *Inspection and copying.* A railroad shall make a copy of the RRP plan and each subsequent amendment available to representatives of FRA or States participating under part 212 of this chapter for inspection and copying during normal business hours.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4852

DARRELL DORIAN MIGGINS, a/k/a

Daryl Miggins,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CR-00-14)

Submitted: December 26, 2001

Decided: January 22, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James T. Maloney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Christine Genaitis, Third-Year Law Student,

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Darrell Dorian Miggins appeals his conviction following a jury

trial for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994) and 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1) (1994). In the sole issue raised by Miggins in this appeal,

he contends that the district court erred in denying his Fed. R. Crim.

P. 29 motion for acquittal. Miggins contends that the evidence at trial

concerning his travel with Charles Bradford Mitchell, who was

arrested in possession of 36.5 grams of crack cocaine, was insufficient

to support his conviction. This court reviews the denial of a motion

for acquittal under a sufficiency of evidence standard. See Fed. R.

Crim. P. 29; Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United

States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 1998). In light of that

standard, we must conclude that the district court did not err in denying Miggins’ motion. Miggins’ argument amounts to an invitation to

this court to reweigh the evidence at trial tending to show that Miggins aided and abetted Mitchell’s illicit trip from New York City to

Charlottesville, Virginia. See Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S.

613, 619 (1949); United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 64 (1951).

This court uniformly declines to accept such invitations. See Glasser,

315 U.S. at 80; United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.

1989). 

Accordingly, Miggins’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. MIGGINS
§ 262.11 Application process. ( a ) All grant applications for opportunities funded under this subsection must be submitted to FRA through *www.grants.gov .* Opportunities to apply will be posted by FRA on *www.grants.gov* only after funds have been appropriated for Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects. The electronic posting will contain all of the information needed to apply for the grant, including required supporting documentation.
( b ) In addition to the information required with an individual application, a State must submit a description of the anticipated public and private benefits associated with each rail line relocation or improvement project described in § 262.7(a)(1) and (2) and the State's assessment of how those benefits outweigh the costs of the proposed project. The determination of such benefits shall be developed in consultation with the owner and user of the rail line being relocated or improved or other private entity involved in the project. The State should also identify any financial contributions or commitments it has secured from private entities that are expected to benefit from the proposed project.
( c ) Potential applicants may request a meeting with the FRA Associate Administrator for Railroad Development or his designee to discuss the nature of the project being considered.
IIB

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 852

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 7, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street

in Youngstown, Ohio, as the ‘‘Nathaniel R. Jones and

Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and United States

Courthouse’’.
2

HR 852 RFS

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 to be constructed at 10 East Commerce Street in Youngs6 town, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Na7 thaniel R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building

8 and United States Courthouse’’.

9 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

10 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

11 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

12 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec13 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nathaniel

14 R. Jones and Frank J. Battisti Federal Building and

15 United States Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
§ 299.437 Automated monitoring. ( a ) Each trainset shall be equipped to monitor the performance of the following systems or components: ( 1 ) Reception of cab and trainset control signals;
( 2 ) Electric brake status;
( 3 ) Friction brake status;
( 4 ) Fire detection systems, if so equipped;
( 5 ) Auxiliary power status;
( 6 ) Wheelslide;
( 7 ) On-board bearing-temperature sensors;
( 8 ) Door open/closed status; and
( 9 ) Bogie vibration detection.
( b ) When any of the monitored parameters are out of predetermined limits, an alert shall be sent immediately to the driver. The railroad's operating rules shall control trainset movement when the monitored parameters are out of predetermined limits.
( c ) The railroad shall develop appropriate operating rules to address driver and equipment performance in the event that the automatic monitoring system becomes defective.
( d ) The monitoring system shall be designed with an automatic self-test feature that notifies the driver that the monitoring capability is functioning correctly and alerts the driver when a system failure occurs.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

395 

KA 10-01178 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARRYL P., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (CHRISTINE M. COOK OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an adjudication of the Onondaga County Court (William

D. Walsh, J.), rendered November 2, 2009. The adjudication revoked

defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of

imprisonment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender based

upon his plea of guilty of aggravated criminal contempt (Penal Law §

215.52) and was sentenced to five years of probation. Defendant

appeals from an adjudication revoking the sentence of probation and

sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years of

incarceration. Contrary to the People’s contention, we conclude that

this appeal is not moot (cf. People v Mackey, 79 AD3d 1680, 1681, lv

denied 16 NY3d 860).

Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court did not abuse

its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment (see People v

Aikey, 94 AD3d 1485, 1486, lv denied 19 NY3d 956). Contrary to

defendant’s further contention, the determination of the court that he

violated the terms of his probation is not against the weight of the

evidence (see People v Garries, 299 AD2d 858, 858, lv denied 99 NY2d

558; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### § 236.806 Signal, home.

A roadway signal at the entrance to a route or block to govern trains in entering and using that route or block.
# EUR-Lex - 52004AP0009(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004AP0009(01)

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (COM(2004)0348 — SN 2057/2004 — C6-0041/2004 — 2004/0114(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 140 E , 09/06/2005 P. 0149 - 0149 *

P6_TA(2004)0009

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation imposing certain restrictive measures in support of effective implementation of the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (COM(2004) 0348 — SN 2057/2004 — C6-0041/2004 — 2004/0114(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2004) 0348) [1],

- having regard to the Council guidelines (SN 2057/2004),

- having regard to Articles 60 and 301 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0041/2004),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0006/2004),

1. Approves the Council guidelines based on the Commission proposal (COM(2004) 0348);

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 199.113 Employee assistance program. ( a ) Each operator shall provide an employee assistance program (EAP) for its employees and supervisory personnel who will determine whether an employee must be drug tested based on reasonable cause. The operator may establish the EAP as a part of its internal personnel services or the operator may contract with an entity that provides EAP services. Each EAP must include education and training on drug use. At the discretion of the operator, the EAP may include an opportunity for employee rehabilitation.
( b ) Education under each EAP must include at least the following elements: display and distribution of informational material; display and distribution of a community service hot-line telephone number for employee assistance; and display and distribution of the employer's policy regarding the use of prohibited drugs.
( c ) Training under each EAP for supervisory personnel who will determine whether an employee must be drug tested based on reasonable cause must include one 60-minute period of training on the specific, contemporaneous physical, behavioral, and performance indicators of probable drug use.
[53 FR 47096, Nov. 21, 1988. Redesignated by Amdt. 199-19, 66 FR 47118, Sept. 11, 2001]
-----Original Message----- 

From: mark.lecher@gmail.com [mailto:mark.lecher@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 9:29 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

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

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

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

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

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

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

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Lecher 

8144 Crackling Lane 

Indianapolis, IN 46259
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,181,471
<SECURITIES>                                   550,254
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,553,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,529,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,671,026
<PP&E>                                      30,380,450
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,235,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              31,815,781
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,307,847
<BONDS>                                      3,150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,153,496
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,859,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                31,815,781
<SALES>                                     44,561,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,938,184
<CGS>                                       31,622,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,622,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,140,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               141,447
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             376,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,077,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,717,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,360,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,360,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.90
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Dean, Respondent, *v.*The General Accident Assurance Corporation, Limited, Appellant.

*Dean*v. *General Accident Assurance Corp., Limited,*131 App. Div. 922, affirmed.

(Argued December 8, 1910;

decided January 17, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 15, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a policy of accident insurance.

*E. W. Personius*for appellant.

*Thomas F. Rogers*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock. Chase and Collin, JJ. Absent: Werner, J.
#### § 27.77 Recipients of Essential Air Service subsidies.

Any air carrier receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation under the Essential Air Service Program shall, as a condition of receiving such assistance, comply with applicable requirements of this part and applicable section 504 and ACAA rules of the Department of Transportation.

[61 FR 56425, Nov. 1, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 51391, Aug. 26, 2003]