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

From: djolly@llschools.net [mailto:djolly@llschools.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:14 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

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

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

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

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

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

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

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Diane Jolly 

100 Vissing Place 

Los Lunas, NM 87031
#### State of Nebraska v. Frank Smith.

Filed June 15, 1918.

No. 20685.

Food: Misbranding: Violation of Statute. Copy of label on which a charge of misbranding is based set out in the opinion, and *held*not a violation of section 2551, Rev. St. 1913.

Error to the district court for Lancaster county: Frederick E. Shepherd, Judge.

*Exceptions overruled.*

*T. J. Doyle*and *F. A. Peterson,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. E. Hager, contra.*

Morrissey, C. J.

Defendant is charged with the violation of section 2551, Rev. St. 1913, which reads:

> “No person shall, within this state manufacture for sale therein, or have in.his possession with intent to sell, offer or expose for sale, or sell any liquors, beverages, remedies, medicines or articles of food or drug which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this article.”

The district court dismissed the proceeding, and the county attorney prosecutes error under section 9185, Rev. St. 1913. The specific charge is that defendant sold a certain beverage which was misbrarided. There is a discrepancy between the allegations of the complaint and the proof which we shall pass over and deal with the question presented as shown by the. proof.

The label found in the bill of exceptions reads:

> “DANCIGER’S Non-alcoholic CORDIALS

> Harmlessly *&*Artificially Flavored & Colored

> Invigorating and Refreshing

> A Beverage Triumph BLACKBERRY Flavor

> Contains 1/10 of 1 per cent. Benzoate Soda.”

*571There-is some difference in the size of the type used and also in the color of the ink, but eyery word is printed in type which is of good size and is easily read. There is some contention that defendant violates the statute by using the word ‘ ‘ Cordials, ’ ’ which word it, is claimed has a well-known meaning and is descriptive of a beverage containing a substantial amount of alcohol. If the word stood alone there might be some basis for this claim, but it is preceded by the descriptive words: “Danciger’s Non-alcoholic.” No person possessing even a rudimentary knowledge of the English language will be deceived by this label into believing that he is buying a beverage containing alcohol.

The further claim is made that the public may be deceived by the label, thinking that the beverage is made from the juice of the blackberry. We find no basis for this contention. The label expressly states that the beverage is “Harmlessly & Artificially Flavored & Colored.” It is true that the words “Blackberry Flavor” are prominently displayed on the label, but they must be considered with that which immediately precedes them.

A letter from the agricultural department, submitted in evidence and found in the bill of exceptions, shows that the label meets the requirements of that department. We fail to find that it violates the provisions of section 2551, Rev. St. 1913, under which the prosecution is brought, and the exceptions are

Overruled.

Hamer, J., not sitting.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0599 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Millie Hagler 

Address: 

110 Martinsborough Rd 

Greenville, NC, 27858 

Phone: 252-355-6133 

Organization: NAMI Pitt County 

General Comment 

“On behalf of NAMI Pitt County, I am writing to submit comments on the Interim Final Rules 

under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 and in doing so NAMI Pitt County endorses the separate comments submitted by the Parity 

Implementation Coalition and the National Alliance on Mental Illness” 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 29, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae3b7a 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/29/2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

United States Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# Date and Time:

Thursday, August 2, 2007; 6 p.m.

# Place:

Via Teleconference.

# Public Call In Number:

1-800-597-7623.

## Meeting Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda.

II. Approval of Minutes of July 13, Meeting.

III. Announcements.

IV. Staff Director's Report.

V. Program Planning.
      - FY 2007 Statutory Report.

VI. Future Agenda Items.

VII. Adjourn.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Manuel Alba, Press and Communications, (202) 376-8582.

Dated: July 23, 2007.

David Blackwood,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 07-3663 Filed 7-23-07; 3:21 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2305 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2305

 To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
   Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Albert V. Bryan United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 1995

  Mr. Moran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
   Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Albert V. Bryan United 
                          States Courthouse''.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) New Courthouse.--
            (1) In general.--The Federal building located at Courthouse 
        Square South and Jamieson Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia, shall 
        be known and designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        Federal building referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed 
        to be a reference to the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
    (b) Old Courthouse.--
            (1) In general.--The Federal building located at 200 South 
        Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, shall not be known 
        and designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        Federal building known and designated prior to the effective 
        date of this section as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
        Courthouse'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal 
        building referred to in paragraph (1).
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective on the 
date of the completion of the construction of the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a)(1).
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Victor Koechl *&*Company, Appellant, *v.*Otto Kelsey, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Koechl & Co.*v. *Kelsey,*138 App. Div. 932, affirmed.

(Argued November 17, 1910;

decided December 6, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 21, 1910, which dismissed a writ of certiorari and confirmed a determination of the defendant in assessing a tax upon the relator, a foreign corporation, under section 182 of the Tax Law.

*George H. Mallory*and *Henry G. Fritsche*for appellant.

*Edward R.*O'Malley, *Attorney-General (Everett E. Risley*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
H. R. 2288

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for 2 years

the deadline by which States are required to have in effect an automated data

processing and information retrieval system for use in the administration of

State plans for child and spousal support.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTOMATION DEADLINE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 454(24) of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 654(24)) is amended by striking ‘‘1995’’ and inserting

‘‘1997’’.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE REPEAL OF FEDERAL FUNDING.—Section 452 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended in each of subsections (d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (e),

by striking ‘‘455(a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘454(16)’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
MDE

1800 Washington Boulevard. Baltimore:MD 21230

410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101. www.mde.state.md.us

Martin O'Malley

Governor

Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.

Secretary

Anthony G. Brown

Lieutenant Governor

;.

'November 15,2012

Linda C. Janey, J.D., Assistant Secretary

Clearinghouse and Communications

Maryland State Clearinghouse for Intergovernmental Assistance

Maryland Office of Planning

301 West Preston Street

Baltirriore MD 21201

Dear Ms. Janey:

I am enclosing a copy of the introductory sections of the State of Maryland Ozone Infrastructure State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Section I Io(a) of the federal Clean Air Act requires that each SIP provide

for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). This section also requires that within three years of the promulgation of a NAAQS, a state

must adopt and submit such a plan to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

These "infrastructure SIPs" provide assurances of state resources and authorities, and where necessary,

establish the basic state programs to implement, maintain and enforce new or revised standards. This

document summarizes where the §11O(a) (2) requirements for the 2008 revised ozone NAAQS are

addressed in Maryland's current SIP or pending SIP revisions. This document may be viewed here:

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/ Air/ AirOualityPlanning/Pages/programs/ airprograms/ air planni

ng/index.aspx.

A public hearing, as required by federal law (42 U.S.C. 7410 (a) and 40 CFR 51.102) will be held on

December 21,2012 at 10:00 a.m. in MDE's first-floor conference room. The official close of the

comment period occurs at the end of business hours on December 21,2012. If you have any comments

on this submittal, please call me at (410) 537-3240.

Sincerely,

- /

~~ z;:;Zu:::f:

Roger E. Thunell

Chief, SIP Planning Division

cc: Diane Franks, Manager Air Quality Planning Program

Brian Hug, Deputy Air Quality Planning Program

~ Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service

WWWi'* H
Exhibit 34.2





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating 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 Cleveland Electric Illuminating 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, 2016 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management’s assertion and are not reported herein, as indicated in Exhibit 33.2 of Management’s Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria. 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 (United States) 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 and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Cleveland, Ohio


March 31, 2017
§ 234.255 Gate arm and gate mechanism. ( a ) Each gate arm and gate mechanism shall be inspected at least once each month.
( b ) Gate arm movement shall be observed for proper operation at least once each month.
( c ) Hold-clear devices shall be tested for proper operation at least once every 12 months.
§ 230.82 Fire doors. ( a ) *General provisions.* Each steam locomotive shall have a fire door which shall latch securely when closed and which shall be maintained in a safe and suitable condition for service. Fire doors on all oil-burning locomotives shall be latched securely with a pin or key.
( b ) *Mechanically operated fire doors.* Mechanically operated fire doors shall be so constructed and maintained that they may be operated by pressure of the foot on a pedal, or other suitable appliance, located on the floor of the cab or tender at a suitable distance from the fire door, so that they may be conveniently operated by the person firing the steam locomotive.
( c ) *Hand-operated doors.* Hand operated fire doors shall be so constructed and maintained that they may be conveniently operated by the person firing the steam locomotive.
Page 1 of 2

REG- }20 652-05
MAY 3 wil

. SORINE JISiON
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISIO!
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS_
BRANCH As of: May 03, 2010
Received: May 01, 2010
Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION [reset er0: 2010
Tracking No. 80ae4c61
Comments Due: May 03, 2010
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2009-0008
Request for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008

Comment On: IRS-2009-0008-0120
Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008

Document: IRS-2009-0008-0144
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-02167

Submitter Information

Name: Mary F Rondeau

Address:
DRaper,
Government Agency Type: Federal
— — — ——

General Comment

I am very supportive of most of the provisions of the interim final rules under the Paul Wellstone
and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. These rules address
many of the inequities in health insurance coverage of mental health care when compared to
medical/surgical care that I have observed in the course of my mental health practice.

However, in my opinion, two areas have not been sufficiently clarified. I am quite concerned that
unless these points are more clearly specified in the final regulations, loopholes will remain that
will permit widespread violation of the legislative intent of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008:

In my opinion, the interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the
comprehensive scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse services ancl
medical/surgical services. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the
Departments in the interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for
MH/SUD must be comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both
across and within each classification. Unless parity in scope of services is required in the final
regulations, the intent of the Act will not be achieved.

I strongly support the application of parity requirements to both QTLs and NQTLs as being
consistent with the Act and allowing for broad application of the parity requirement with regaird to
treatment limitations. However, in order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations rnust
specify more clearly that any NQTLs that are applied by plans must be comparable for MH/SUD
and medical surgical benefits, and that any NQTLs for MH/SUD must be no more restrictive than

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010


Page 2 of 2

NQTLs that are predominant across the broad range of medical/surgical benefits. Thank you,

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

(EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN)

**AGREEMENT**, made this February 1, 2003, by and between Michael Wellesley-Wesley (hereinafter referred to as "Trustee"), and Chyron Corporation, a New York corporation with its principal offices at 5 Hub Drive, Melville, New York 11747.

**WHEREAS**, the Trustee has agreed to provide his service to the Chyron Corp. Employee's Pension Plan, (the "Plan") provided that Chyron Corporation (the "Company") agrees to indemnify and hold it harmless for certain actions or inactions as Trustee; and

**WHEREAS**, the Company has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the Trustee for certain actions or inactions as Trustee.

**NOW, THEREFORE**, the parties agree as follows:

 1. To the maximum extent permitted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and by other applicable Federal or state law, the Trustee shall not be liable for (either jointly or severally), and the Company shall indemnify the Trustee against, and agree to hold the Trustee harmless from, any and all liabilities and claims (including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses in defending against such liabilities and claims) against the Trustee arising from any action or inaction of the Trustee with respect to the Plan, unless such liability or expense results from grossly negligent or willful acts of commission or omission by the Trustee.  The foregoing indemnification also shall apply to all liabilities and claims against the Trustee arising from any breach of fiduciary responsibility by fiduciaries other than Trustee, unless the Trustee participates knowingly in such breach, or has actual knowledge of such breach and fails to take reasonable remedial action to remedy such breach.  The Trustee shall be entitled to collect on the Company's indemnity under this Agreement only from the Company and shall not be entitled to payment directly or indirectly from the Plan.

 2. The Trustee shall give the Company prompt written notice of any asserted or potential claim by any party with respect to which the Trustee reasonably expects to assert a claim for indemnification.  The Company shall have the right to defend and control the nature of any action or defense to any such claim or demand which may be asserted against the Trustee for which the Trustee reasonably expects to assert a claim for indemnification.

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have set their hands and executed this Agreement, effective February 1, 2003.