alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 50653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Madison-Beaverhead Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393, as amended by Section 
5401 of Public Law 110-28, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, 
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007) 
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest's Madison-Beaverhead Resource 
Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from 10 
a.m. to 4 p.m., in Dillon, Montana, for a business meeting. The meeting 
is open to the public.

DATES: Wednesday, September 19, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the USDA Service Center, 420 
Barrett Street, Dillon, Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Ramsey, Designated Forest 
Official (DFO), Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 
Forest, at (406) 683-3973.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics for this meeting include 
making decisions on projects to fund under Title II of Public Law 106-
393, and other business. If the meeting location changes, notice will 
be posted in local newspapers, including the Dillon Tribune and The 
Montana Standard.

    Dated: August 28, 2007.
Bruce Ramsey,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-4305 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133678(72) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133678 

 COA: 266033 
 Wayne CC: 05-005711-01

KENNETH FITZGERALD NIXON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

10, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
-----Original Message----- 

From: INSLEE@RCN.COM [mailto:INSLEE@RCN.COM] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 9:56 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, 

J. William Inslee 

332 Country Club Rd. 

Coatesville, PA 19320
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CHIRON CORPORATION**

 

*SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*

 

Inconnection with the periodic report of **CHIRONCORPORATION, a Delaware corporation** (the “Company”), onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,**HOWARD H. PIEN, Chief Executive Officer** of the Company, herebycertify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.

 
| Date:  April 6, 2005 | By:    | /s/  HOWARD  H. PIEN | ** ** |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|------------|
|                      |   | **HOWARD H. PIEN**             |
|                      |   | **Chief Executive Officer**    |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  July 1, 2009
    /s/ Bruce J. BarrettBruce J. Barrett, President and Chief Executive OfficerDated:  July 1, 2009
    /s/ William M. IaconaWilliam M. Iacona, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Treasurer
#### Katherine Murray, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Murray, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Murray*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*133 App. Div. 893, affirmed.

(Argued November 30, 1910;

decided December 16, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 8, 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 for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant's negligence.

*Robert A. Kutschbock, Alex. S. Lyman*and *Charles C. Paulding*for appellant.

*Raymond L. Thurber*and *Frank F. Davis*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
73

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMM’N IN THE

OF MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Petitioner, Misc. Docket AG No.

v. September Term, 201 CORY LEV ZAJDEL

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter came before the Court 0n the Joint Petition for Reprimand by Consent

filed by the Attorney Grievance Commission 0f Maryland and the Respondent, Cory Lev

Zajdel. The Court having considered the Joint Petition and the record herein, it is this

day of 2019:

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Cory Lev Zajdel, be and he hereby is,

REPRIMANDED for Violating Rule 1.5(c) of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules 0f

Professional Conduct.

Senior Judge
-----Original Message----- 

From: ferrell11@riseup.net [mailto:ferrell11@riseup.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:13 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, 

Stephanie Frizzell 

509 Joyce Dr 

Garland, TX 75040
From: Kathie Livesley [mailto:kathie@mtaonline.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 12:16 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I recently wrote my senator, Murkowski from Alaska about the above, and she responded to me 

by an email dated May 26, 2015, in part, as follows:

While I believe it is important to ensure that Alaskans and all Americans are protected 

when seeking retirement investment advice, I question whether the DOL has the necessary 

expertise to expand its jurisdiction over this investment advice. The Securities and 

Exchange Commission has far more experience and the necessary statutory directive to 

establish a uniform standard of fiduciary for financial advice. 

Can you tell me why DOL is better qualified than the SEC in this particular instance?

Thank you,

Kathie Livesley

PO Box 877347

Wasilla, AK 99687
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:54 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, 

chuck malley 

20673 redwing lane 

bend, OR 97702
Page | of 1

REC 1206G92-09

MAY 3 2010

LEGAL PROCESSING DIV:
ISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS
[As of: May 03, 2010
BRANCH Received: May 01, 2010
Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION [resee:tay 3,201
Tracking No. 80ae50a6
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-2009-0008-0146
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-02167

Submitter Information

Name: Jolene Ross
Address:
140 Bristol Rd.
Wellesley, MA, 02481
Email: DrRoss@AdvancedNeurotherapy.com
Phone: 781-444-9115
Fax: 781-444-9134
Organization: Advanced Neurotherapy, PC

Government Agency Type: Federal
— - — —— — — ———

General Comment

1. The interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the comprehensive
scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse (MH/SA) services and
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.

2. In order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must specify more clearly that any
treatment limitations (based on scientific review criteria) that are applied by plans must be
comparable for MH/SUD and medical surgical benefits, and that scientific review criteria
employed for MH/SUD services must be no more restrictive than those that are predominant
across the broad range of medical/surgical benefits.

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
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, 2008, 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 10th day of November, 2008.







/s/DonaldJ.Torbert,Jr.Donald J. Torbert,
      Jr.Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished
to the SEC or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DONICAN DONSHAE GREEN,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-13-00046-CR

Appeal from the

432nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1127025D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 6:49 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Teal Scott 

1972 S. 1700 E. 

Salt Lake City, UT 84108
§ 236.787a Railroad. Railroad means any form of non-highway ground transportation that runs on rails or electromagnetic guideways and any entity providing such transportation, including— ( a ) Commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area and commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979; and
( b ) High speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas, without regard to whether those systems use new technologies not associated with traditional railroads; but does not include rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation.
[70 FR 11095, Mar. 7, 2005]
§ 231.31 Drawbars for freight cars; standard height. ( a ) Except on cars specified in paragraph (b) of this section— ( 1 ) On standard gage (561 ⁄ 2-inch gage) railroads, the maximum height of drawbars for freight cars (measured perpendicularly from the level of the tops of the rails to the centers of the drawbars) shall be 341 ⁄ 2 inches, and the minimum height of drawbars for freight cars on such standard gage railroads (measured in the same manner) shall be 311 ⁄ 2 inches.
( 2 ) On 36-inch gage railroads, the maximum height of drawbars for freight cars (measured perpendicularly from the level of the tops of the rails to the centers of the drawbars) shall be 26 inches, and the minimum height of drawbars for freight cars on such 36-inch gage railroads (measured in the same manner) shall be 23 inches.
( 3 ) On 24-inch gage railroads, the maximum height of drawbars for freight cars (measured perpendicularly from the level of the tops of the rails to the centers of the drawbars) shall be 171 ⁄ 2 inches, and the minimum height of drawbars for freight cars on 24-inch gage railroads (measured in the same manner) shall be 141 ⁄ 2 inches.
( 4 ) On railroads operating on track with a gage other than those contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section, the maximum and minimum height of drawbars for freight cars operating on those railroads shall be established upon written approval of FRA.
( b ) This section shall not apply to a railroad all of whose track is less than 24 inches in gage.
[66 FR 4192, Jan. 17, 2001]
§ 229.17 Accident reports. ( a ) In the case of an accident due to a failure from any cause of a locomotive or any part or appurtenance of a locomotive, or a person coming in contact with an electrically energized part or appurtenance, that results in serious injury or death of one or more persons, the carrier operating the locomotive shall immediately report the accident by toll free telephone, Area Code 800-424-0201. The report shall state the nature of the accident, number of persons killed or seriously injured, the place at which it occurred, the location at which the locomotive or the affected parts may be inspected by the FRA, and the name, title and phone number of the person making the call. The locomotive or the part or parts affected by the accident shall be preserved intact by the carrier until after the FRA inspection.
( b ) Written confirmation of the oral report required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be immediately mailed to the Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-25, Washington, D.C. 20590, and contain a detailed description of the accident, including to the extent known, the causes and the number of persons killed and injured. The written report required by this paragraph is in addition to the reporting requirements of 49 CFR part 225.
[79 FR 21636, Apr. 17, 2014]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RACHEL PAPLOW,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1389

[November 1, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2012-CF004984-AXXX-MB.

Bryan Raymond of the Law Office of Bryan Raymond, West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and FORST, JJ. concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 221.5 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Train* means a locomotive unit or locomotive units coupled, with or without cars, involved in a railroad operation conducted on a main track. It does not include yard movements.
( b ) *Commuter train* means a short haul passenger train operating on track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation, within an urban, suburban or metropolitan area. It includes a passenger train provided by an instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof.
( c ) *Locomotive* means a self-propelled unit of equipment designed for moving other equipment in revenue service and includes a self-propelled unit designed to carry freight or passenger traffic, or both.
( d ) *Main track* means a track, other than an auxiliary track, extending through yards or between stations, upon which trains are operated by timetable or train order or both, or the use of which is governed by a signal system.
( e ) *Train order* means mandatory directives issued as authority for the conduct of a railroad operation outside of yard limits.
( f ) *Red-orange-amber color range* means those colors defined by chromaticity coordinates, as expressed in terms of the International Commission on Illumination's 1931 Colormetric System, which lie within the region bounded by the spectrum locus and lines defined by the following equations: X + Y = .97 (white boundary) Y = X − .12 (green boundary)
( g ) *Administrator* means the Federal Railroad Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, or any official of the Federal Railroad Administration to whom the Administrator has delegated his authority under this part.
( h ) *Effective intensity* means that intensity of a light in candela as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society's Guide for Calculating the Effective Intensity of Flashing Signal Lights, November, 1964.
( i ) *Qualified person* means any person who has the skill to perform the task and has received adequate instruction.
[42 FR 2321, Jan. 11, 1977; 42 FR 3843, Jan. 21, 1977, as amended at 51 FR 25185, July 10, 1986]
-- Converted by SECPublisher 3.1.0.1, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing
















EXHIBIT 10.1






AMENDMENT TO UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR WILLIAM FIKE 


         This Amendment dated effective as of March 10, 2006 amends the Umpqua Holdings Corporation Employment Agreement for William Fike by and between Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation ("Umpqua"), and
William Fike ("Officer") dated effective as of May 12, 2005 (the "Employment Agreement"). 


        1. Amendment.  Section 10 of the Employment Agreement is amended in its entirety to read
as follows: 


                 "10.1 Post Change in Control Termination. After a Change in Control and for a period continuing for one year following a Change in
Control, in the event of Termination Without Cause, Termination For Good Reason, or Resignation within 30 days after reassignment to a position that is not substantially equivalent, instead of receiving the Severance Benefit set forth in Section 9
above, Officer shall receive 36 months Base Salary, based on Officer's Base Salary just prior to the termination of employment, as well as 300% of the incentive compensation Officer received for the previous year (the aforementioned Base Salary and
incentive are collectively referred to as the "Change in Control Benefit"). The Change in Control Benefit shall be paid in equal installments over 36 months, starting on the next regular payday following termination. Receipt of the Change in Control
Benefit is conditioned on Officer having executed the Separation Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and the revocation period having
expired without Officer having revoked the Separation Agreement. Receipt and continued receipt of the Change in Control Benefit is further conditioned on Officer not being in violation of any material term of this Agreement or in violation of any
material term of the Separation Agreement. Officer shall not be required to mitigate the amount of any payments under this Section (whether by seeking new employment or otherwise) and no such payment shall be reduced by earnings that Officer may
receive from any other source." 


        2. Continuing Agreement.


                Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement as previously executed shall continue in full force and effect as written. 

	
"UMPQUA" 
		
 		
"OFFICER" 
	
	
 
	
	
 
	
	
By: 
		
 		

/s/ Raymond P. Davis          

		
 
                                 By: 		

/s/ William Fike                  

	
	
Name:
		
 		
Raymond P. Davis 
		
 
                                
Name:	
 William Fike 
	
	
Its: 
		
 		
President and Chief Executive Officer