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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2119

DENNIS ARTHUR TALBOT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ACME PAPER AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.

(CA-04-1567-JFM)

Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: March 24, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Arthur Talbot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Nicholas

Petkovich, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Arthur Talbot, Jr., appeals the district court’s

order granting summary judgment to his employer in his civil action

alleging employment discrimination claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Talbot v. Acme Paper & Supply Co., No.

CA-04-1567-JFM (D. Md. filed Aug. 30, 2005 & entered Aug. 31,

2005). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         254,584
<SECURITIES>                                    82,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    166,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               552,944
<PP&E>                                          53,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 612,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,809,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   612,398
<SALES>                                        175,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           47,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,317
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,317
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        




</TABLE>
#### § 234.221 Lamp voltage.

The voltage at each lamp shall be maintained at not less than 85 percent of the prescribed rating for the lamp.
#### LAZARUS S. MURAD, Respondent, *v.*ELLIS R. THOMAS, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

*Commitment of a party for contempt*— *attendance of such a party upon the court • upon an application for his discharge*— -,such *attendance does not entitle him to claim the privilege of a witness and freedom from arrest while so in attendance.*

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term denying a motion to set aside a commitment.

A fine had been imposed upon the defendant by an order of the court because of his violation of an injunction, and his commitment was ordered until hp should pay the fine or be otherwise sooner discharged by the court. Under this order a commitment had been issued upon which the defendant was arrested and committed to prison, and he applied for his discharge from the imprisonment, by *habeas corpus,*on the ground of the insufficiency of the commitment itself.

During the pendency of that proceeding he was committed to the custody of his counsel, and appeared in person when it was finally decided and an order made for his discharge. Immediately succeeding this order a further commitment was issued upon which the defendant was at once arrested, and he applied to be relieved *82from that arrest for the reason that he was privileged as a party in , attendance upon the other proceeding.

The court at General Term said: “For all the purposes of the case he continued in custody from the time when he was brought before the judge by the *habeas corpus*until the order was made for his discharge. Theoretically as well as in fact he was during the whole time under restraint and could not, therefore, entitle himself to be relieved from the second commitment on any ground' of privilege from arrest. This second commitment was issued to supply the defects found to exist in the one which preceded it, and for that reason it was sanctioned by the practice of the court. *(Snyder v.,Van*Ingen, 9 Hun, 569.)' It was warranted by the order itself, which directed the effectual imprisonment of the defendant until he should pay the fine imposed upon him or be otherwise discharged, and that under the circumstances could only be secured by issuing and executing the second commitment.” * * *

*F.*Cooke, for the appellant.

*8. F. Kneeland,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.;

Davis, P. J., and Heady, J".,.concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
-----Original Message----- 

From: drstehle@therapeuticum.org [mailto:drstehle@therapeuticum.org] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 03, 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). 

Since January 2010 insurance companies seem to have tightened their 

requirements for mental health treatments again. Our clinic offers 

intensive outpatient programs for chronic mental health conditions or 

those that have not responded to basic interventions. Our approach is 

a self-care approach that teaches patients to be proactive in the 

treatment of their condition, understand their limitations and create 

meaningful and sustainable lives for themselves. Our programs address 

chronic pain conditions, treatment resistive anxiety, stress, and 

depressive disorders, and Autism Spectrum Disorders in children and 

adults. 

Over the years we have been able to make "Single Case Agreements" with 

HMO's and PPOs due to the specialty nature of our programs. However 

since January of 2010 insurance reviewers routinely tell us that the 

conditions are not severe enough to warrant IOP (intensive outpatient 

program)even though our patient's conditions fit their own criteria for 

admission to IOP. It is as if insurance carries deny services until a 

lawyer gets involved, and even then we have to go through appeal after 

appeal. Frequently, the insurance carrier changes their tune right 

before the appeal goes to the department of insurance. However, many 

patients give up before that time, because they need help and need it 

now. 

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 

Ursula R. Stehle, PhD 

4112 Pennsylvania Ave 

Fair Oaks, CA 95628 

Sincerely, 

Ursula Stehle 

4112 Pennsylvania Ave 

Fair Oaks, CA 95628
|   | (1) | I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mammatech Corporation; |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other information included in this quarterly report, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of and fort the period presented in this quarterly report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2396

RUDOLPH S. PAPESH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. REX BROOKSHIRE, II, Maryland Worker's Compensation Commission Director of Administration; CHARLES J. KRYSIAK, Maryland Worker's

Compensation Commission Chairman; STEPHEN

ROSENBAUM, Maryland Worker's Compensation

Commission Commissioner; MELVIN HIRSHMAN,

Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland Bar

Counsel; WILLIAM B. BOKEL, JR., Insurance

Fraud Unit Corporal-MSP; THOMAS V. MIKE

MILLER, JR., President, Senate of Maryland;

WILLIAM DONALD SCHAEFER, Past Governor; STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1984-WMN)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Rudolph S. Papesh, Appellant Pro Se. Lucy Adams Cardwell, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss his civil action in which he sought

damages for alleged constitutional violations in the course of

workers' compensation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Papesh v.

Brookshire, No. CA-95-1984-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 3, 1996). 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
#### § 26.27 What efforts must recipients make concerning DBE financial institutions?

You must thoroughly investigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in your community and make reasonable efforts to use these institutions. You must also encourage prime contractors to use such institutions.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                      Chief Executive Officer 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 Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
John H. Castle, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

    1.  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
        and

    2.  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        the Company.


Date:  November 13, 2003
       -----------------

                                        /s/ John H. Castle
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John H. Castle, Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.
and will be retained by Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                      E-6
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The Board of Supervisors of the County of Ulster, Respondents, v. The Common Council of the City of Kingston, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Landon, J.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                                  CLARCOR INC.
 
                 EXHIBIT 11--COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
 
                   FOR THE FIVE YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   FISCAL YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------
    AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING         1996         1995         1994         1993         1992
    --------------------------      ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>  <C>                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
1.   Average number of shares
       outstanding................  14,859,252   14,800,872   14,813,925   14,837,741   14,972,639
2.   Net additional shares
       resulting from assumed
       exercise of stock
       options*...................     293,656      316,630      225,599      213,725      230,202
                                    ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
3.   Adjusted average shares
       outstanding for fully
       diluted computation (1 plus
       2).........................  15,152,908   15,117,502   15,039,524   15,051,466   15,202,841
                                    ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
Earnings per share of common
 stock:
     Primary......................       $1.68        $1.48        $1.43        $1.16        $0.94
                                    ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
     Assuming full dilution.......       $1.65        $1.45        $1.41        $1.15        $0.93
                                    ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
 
------------------------------
* Assumes proceeds from exercise of stock options used to purchase treasury
  shares at the greater of the year-end or the average market price during the
  period.
§ 222.17 How can a State agency become a recognized State agency? ( a ) Any State agency responsible for highway-rail grade crossing safety and/or highway and road safety may become a recognized State agency by submitting an application to the Associate Administrator that contains: ( 1 ) A detailed description of the proposed scope of involvement in the quiet zone development process;
( 2 ) The name, address, and telephone number of the person(s) who may be contacted to discuss the State agency application; and
( 3 ) A statement from State agency counsel which affirms that the State agency is authorized to undertake the responsibilities proposed in its application.
( b ) The Associate Administrator will approve the application if, in the Associate Administrator's judgment, the proposed scope of State agency involvement will facilitate safe and effective quiet zone development. The Associate Administrator may include in any decision of approval such conditions as he/she deems necessary and appropriate.
Exhibit 99.2

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 Henry County Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Debbie Walker, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                     
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    | /s/ DEBBIE WALKER                                                                 
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |                                                                                   
|                    | Debbie Walker, Senior Vice president  (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|                    |                                                                                   
|Date:  May 14, 2003 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-15-1998
<CASH>                                       2,167,745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    805,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,525,910
<PP&E>                                      65,203,543
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,500,523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,935,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,424,639
<BONDS>                                     21,729,466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       425,066
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,337,316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,935,698
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,544,785
<CGS>                                        7,900,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,830,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,959,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             762,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                954,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                   290,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            664,975
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   664,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 5:29 PM

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jyc-i4we

Comments Due: July 21, 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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2165

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dave Koontz

General Comment

Re: Definition of Fiduciary: I am very concerned that the government continues to find ways to 

micro-manage American citizens. I am comfortable managing my own retirement assets. I don't 

need the government potentially taking away my options to invest my own money. I am tired of 

the government inventing more ways to "protect" me from myself and my decisions.
#### § 199.217 On-duty use.

Each operator shall prohibit a covered employee from using alcohol while performing covered functions. No operator having actual knowledge that a covered employee is using alcohol while performing covered functions shall permit the employee to perform or continue to perform covered functions.