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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2370 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2370

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the veterans' 
adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project through the first three 
                      months of fiscal year 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 1995

  Mr. Buyer (for himself, Ms. Waters, Mr. Stump, and Mr. Montgomery) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the veterans' 
adjustable rate mortgage demonstration project through the first three 
                      months of fiscal year 1996.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 3707(a) of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking out ``and 1995'' 
and inserting in lieu thereof ``1995, and the first three months of 
1996''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 236.101 Purpose of inspection and tests; removal from service of relay or device failing to meet test requirements.

The following inspections and tests shall be made in accordance with specifications of the carrier, subject to approval of the FRA, to determine if the apparatus and/or equipment is maintained in condition to perform its intended function. Electronic device, relay, or other electromagnetic device which fails to meet the requirements of specified tests shall be removed from service, and shall not be restored to service until its operating characteristics are in accordance with the limits within which such device or relay is designed to operate.

[49 FR 3384, Jan. 26, 1984]
#### CORA M. McLEAN, Respondent, v. LESTER W. McLEAN, Aqpellant.

(199 N. W. 872.)

Appeal and error — in equitable proceedings, supreme court will remand when necessary, for retrial, oven trial de novo demanded.

1. Where the supreme court deems such course necessary to the accomplishment of justice, it will remand the case for a retrial in the district court, even though a trial de novo is demanded in the supreme court.

Disposition of case.

2. Eor reasons stated in the opinion, this case is remanded for a new trial in the district court.

Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. § 3099 p. 1116 n. 59.

Opinion filed July 25, 1924.

From a judgment of the District Court of Burleigh County, *Lembhe,*J., defendant appeals.

Remanded for a new trial.

*C. L.*Gram, for appellant.

*F. F.*McCurdy, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for divorce upon the grounds of nonsupport and extreme cruelty. The trial court found that the charge of non-support had not been established; but it further found that the defendant had been guilty of extreme cruelty as alleged in the complaint and the plaintiff was awarded a decree of divorce on that ground. The custody of a hoy about ten years of age, the issue of the marriage, was awarded to the plaintiff. Defendant has appealed from the judgment and demands a trial de novo in this court.

A careful consideration of the evidence leaves us very much in doubt as to what disposition should he made of the case. Upon many features the evidence is quite unsatisfactory. Upon the record presented we do not feel justified in reversing the judgment nor do we feel entirely justified in affirming it. We believe that it may he possible for either or both of the parties to adduce additional testimony *310which will tend to clarify the situation. Taking the matter as a whole we are of the opinion that the case is one where the interests of justice will be best subserved by remanding the case for a retrial in accordance with the precedent set by Landis v. Knight, 23 N. D. 450, 137 N. W. 477. See also King v. Tallmadge, 45 N. D. 531, 178 N. W. 280; Drivdahl v. International Harvester Co. 43 N. D. 284, 174 N. W. 817, and authorities cited therein.

It is therefore ordered that the case be remanded for a retrial. All costs, including the costs of this appeal, will abide the result of the final judgment.

Bronson, Oh. J., and. Christianson, Johnson, Nuesslb, and Birdzell, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1761

STARSHA SEWELL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES/PHEAA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:15-cv-03076-DKC)

Submitted: November 14, 2016 Decided: November 16, 2016

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Esposito, Thomas 

Clinton Goodhue, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing this action raising various claims related to a 

default student loan. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Sewell v. American Edu. Servs./PHEAA, 

No. 8:15-cv-03076-DKC (D. Md. June 24, 2016). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 165 (Monday, August 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49028-49029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4200]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Environmental Safeguards, Inc., Garden Botanika, 
Inc., Northwestern Steel & Wire Co., Paul Harris Stores, Inc., Ultra 
Motorcycle Co., UStel, Inc., and Yarc Systems Corp.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

August 23, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information

[[Page 49029]]

concerning the securities of Environmental Safeguards, Inc. because it 
has not filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the 
period ended June 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Garden Botanika, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 
2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Paul Harris Stores, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended October 28, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Ultra Motorcycle Co. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
UStel, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since it 
filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Yarc Systems Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
it filed a Form 10-KSB for the period ended January 31, 2000.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed 
companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 23, 
2007, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 6, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4200 Filed 8-23-07; 9:51 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
From: elumpkins@comcast.net [mailto:elumpkins@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 11:01 PM 

To: Paul Mayhue 

Cc: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA; Baum, Beth - EBSA; Lumpkins, Elias; Lenear, Senita; Lumpkins, 

Ruth; wmayhue@sbcglobal.net; JVaughn@grcc.edu; ladybdean@sbcglobal.net; 

khoskins@tds.net; rclanton69@sbcglobal.net; Ben.Logan@grcourt.org; jkumalo@comcast.net; 

sharris@ci.grand-rapids.mi.us; maanders@grcc.edu 

Subject: Re: Kent County Mental Health Parity Discussion Group-Comments on MHParity Act of 

2008

Commissioner Mayhue, 

 

Congratulations to your team and you on a fantastic job! Your persistence and 

commitment have resulted in a great document and something that will benefit 

tens of thousands of patients and their families. Thank you! 

 Serving and assisting you through 

Communication! Collaboration! Commitment! 

City Commissioner Elias Lumpkins 

1742 Southampton S.E, 

Grand Rapids, MI 49508 

E-mail: ELumpkins@grcity.us ELumpkins@comcast.net 

Office:616-340-5361 Home:616-243-5395 Cell:616- 340-5361 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Paul Mayhue" <PaulM@TI-GR.com> 

To: "Department-of-Labor (e-ohpsca.ebsa@dol.gov)" <e-ohpsca.ebsa@dol.gov>, 

"Dept-of-Labor-Beth-Baum-EBSA" <baum.beth@dol.gov> 

Sent: Friday, May 8, 2009 3:19:51 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 

Subject: Kent County Mental Health Parity Discussion Group-Comments on 

MHParity Act of 2008 

This document is presented by the Kent County Mental Health Parity Discussion Group. 

The information that is attached are the comments that represent a broad base of the, 

Local Political, Consumers, Behavioral and Mental Health Community Opinion in our Area. 

We can be contacted at 201 Sheldon St SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503, 616-459-0255 

Extention 304 Greg Dziadosz, Extention 184 W. Paul Mayhue, Hank Fuhs 616-4379059, Paul 

Ippel 616-336-3765, Cyndy Viars 616-949-1100.

This message and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information 

and is intended only for the entities named herein. If you are not the intended 

recipient, you are hereby notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any 

action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. This 

message has been prepared using resources owned by Touchstone Innovare, Grand 

Rapids, Michigan.
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: June 30, 2008
    
    /s/ Bruce J. BarrettBruce J. Barrett,President and Chief Executive OfficerDated: June 30, 2008
    
    /s/ William M. IaconaWilliam M. Iacona,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Treasurer
#### § 236.531 Trip arm; height and distance from rail.

Trip arm of automatic train stop device when in the stop position shall be maintained at a height above the plane of the tops of the rails, and at a horizontal distance from its center line to gage side of the nearest running rail, in accordance with specifications of the carrier.

[49 FR 3386, Jan. 26, 1984]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/5/15 11:13 AM

Received: June 04, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8j8g-4g19

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

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

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

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

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0306

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

As I understand it, the DOL proposal is almost ridiculous. From my reading, it assumes that all 

advisers are acting in their selfish best interests, not helping clients solve for their specific 

needs, an assumption with which I strongly disagree. (*Based on my 30+ years experience in 

the industry, including 12 as senior management at a B/D, RIA, general agency.) Further, it 

seems to imply that an annual flat charge or fee, hourly or as a percentage, is a better solution 

for clients, despite the possibility and even likelihood of increasing costs to investors long term. 

It also seems to focus on clients accumulation of assets not the distribution challenges of those 

assets in retirement, which is the purpose for which most IRA rollovers will ultimately be 

needed. 

I have yet to understand how the DOL usurped authority over personal investments, whether in 

retirement plans or personal accounts. They did nothing to protect workers while corporations 

stripped away pension benefits over the last generation (look up the number of pension plans 

that exist presently v. what existed 40 years ago). Now the DOL wants to tell America's 

workers and investors how they should invest their money, with little choice in how and from 

whom they receive advice. They allowed corporations to reduce costs at the expense of workers 

by eliminating pensions and now, under the guise of saving the public money, they want the 

public to believe it will be in their best interests if they drive all retirement funds to "low annual 

cost providers" who then can provide advice for a prescribed fee annually. The DOL was 

obviously shortsighted in their assessment (obviously didn't understand the math and security) 

of a workers' pensions and is showing the same propensity for flawed judgement in driving all 

IRA's (by definition long term investments) to a limited number of investment providers based 

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b1aeda&format=xml&showor... 6/5/2015
on annual cost, annual performance. The DOL is not the entity I want to determine my future 

security!

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b1aeda&format=xml&showor... 6/5/2015
From: bullockhl@aol.com [mailto:bullockhl@aol.com] 

Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:00 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

re: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Mr. or Ms.:

The only way to receive a guaranteed lifetime income that one cannot outlive is to purchase an annuity 

contract from an insurance company. Before making such a purchase, there is a period of time where the 

purchaser has questions and demands service in the form of time and attention and research to answer 

the consumer's question. This necessarily would require costs on the part of the provider, in the form of 

information systems, literature, telephone consultations, etc, such that one may reasonable conclude that 

these costs must somehow be accounted for by the insurance company.

The free market has evolved an elegant system for handling these costs and providing these services to 

the consumer. It is called the licensed insurance agency, populated by licensed insurance agents. 

Policing this system, of course, is the proper role of government, here, but there is no lack of appropriate 

remedies should the need occur for such correction. To install a fiduciary standard on these sales agents 

is simply "overkill"- the marketplace does not for the most part, include very many of either "predators or 

prey"- rather, it is an "eyes wide open", skeptical, arms-length concourse where today's consumer is 

already painstaking in his or her decision-making process.

A fiduciary standard makes sense if the consumer is paying the agent on a fee-only basis, of course. 

However, most people would refuse to pay such a fee, but be put off by the disclosures required by the 

proposed new standard, and decide against purchasing the annuity. Then, I suspect, they would leave 

their money wherever it is, cash out a little bit at a time until it is all spent over the ensuing few yearsdefeating our common purpose of seeing these retirees establish lifetime financial security.

Please tread carefully here. The life insurance agent is not the problem, but the core resource at the heart 

of the solution.

Thank you, sincerely,

Henry L. (Larry) Bullock

Life and Health Insurance Services

Customized Strategies and Solutions for Family Wealth Preservation

telephone: 301-503-9091 

fax: 928-222-3416

licensed in Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Independent 

agency.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2283

To prohibit the regulation of the sale or use of tobacco or tobacco products

by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 7, 1995

Mr. PAYNE of Virginia (for himself, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BAESLER, Mr.

BOUCHER, Mr. COBLE, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. HEFNER, Mr. ROSE, Mr.

SPRATT, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mr.

JONES, Mr. GORDON, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. WARD, Mr. TAYLOR of North

Carolina, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. PETERSON of Florida)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Commerce

A BILL

To prohibit the regulation of the sale or use of tobacco

or tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and

Human Services.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and

5 Human Services may not regulate the sale or use of to6 bacco or tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug,

7 and Cosmetic Act and may not take any action with re-
2

•HR 2283 IH

1 spect to tobacco or tobacco products under the Federal

2 Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or the Comprehen3 sive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986

4 which was not authorized before the date of the enactment

5 of this Act.

6 (b) REGULATIONS.—Any regulation issued by the

7 Secretary of Health and Human Services relating the reg8 ulation of the sale or use of tobacco or tobacco products

9 which takes effect before the date of the enactment of this

10 Act shall on such date be considered as repealed.

11 (c) CONSTRUCTION.—This Act shall not be construed

12 as a statement that the Secretary of Health and Human

13 Services had the authority to regulate the sale or use of

14 tobacco or tobacco products before the date of the enact15 ment of this Act.

Æ
§ 260.7 Priority consideration. When evaluating applications, the Administrator will give priority consideration (but not necessarily in the following order) to projects that: ( a ) Enhance public safety;
( b ) Enhance the environment;
( c ) Promote economic development;
( d ) Enable United States companies to be more competitive in international markets;
( e ) Are endorsed by the plans prepared under section 135 of title 23, United States Code, by the State or States in which they are located; or
( f ) Preserve or enhance rail or intermodal service to small communities or rural areas.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2447 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2447

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit nonparty 
   multicandidate political committees from making contributions to 
                 candidates in congressional elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1995

Mr. Torkildsen (for himself, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Horn, and 
Mr. Inglis of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on House Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit nonparty 
   multicandidate political committees from making contributions to 
                 candidates in congressional elections.

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

SECTION. 1. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY NONPARTY MULTICANDIDATE 
              POLITICAL COMMITTEES TO CANDIDATES IN CONGRESSIONAL 
              ELECTIONS.

    Section 315(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
(2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting after ``$5,000'' the 
following: ``, except that, with respect to an election for the office 
of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
to, the Congress, a nonparty multicandidate political committee may not 
make such contributions''.
                                 <all>
```