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

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

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:08 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, 

Dylan Strickland 

2256 Fox Hills Dr. 

Los Angeles, CA 90064
#### Pierce *v.*Pierce.

*A*written common-law award, upon a written submission, cannot be impeached in an action at law upon it by extraneous evidence, nor in any proceeding, simply for tbe allowance of claims barred by the statute of limitations.

Assumpsit, to recover the balance due on two notes signed by the defendant, payable to the order of Franklin Pierce, deceased, and. endorsed by his executor to the plaintiff. Plea, general issue. There was an indoi-sement of a partial payment on each of the notes, which the evidence tended to show was made in pursuance of the written common-law award of a referee mutually chosen by the defendant and the executor. The defendant claimed and offered to testify that the referee erroneously and illegally allowed claims against him to the estate which were barred by the statute of , limitations, and that thereby the amount found due him from the estate, and indorsed on the notes, was much smaller than it ought to have been ; but the testimony was excluded, and the defendant excepted. He also proposed to ask the executor whether the referee did not allow such claims, and excepted to the exclusion of the question.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Motion for a new trial, which was denied, and thereupon a bill of exceptions was filed and allowed.

*Gross,*for the plaintiff.

The defendant, *pro se.*

Blodgett, J.

*Truesdale*v. *Straw,*58 N. H. 207, is a decisive authority against the defendant; but, without regard to that case, we think there is no ground for holding that a common-law award can be impeached in any proceeding, simply for the allowance of claims barred by the statute of limitations.

*.Exceptions overruled.*

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 38]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ038.109]

[[Page 119 STAT. 408]]

Public Law 109-38
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
   To permit the individuals currently serving as Executive Director, 
    Deputy Executive Directors, and General Counsel of the Office of 
Compliance to serve one additional term. <<NOTE: July 27, 2005 -  [H.R. 
                                3071]>> 

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

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 2 USC 1832 note.>> PERMITTING CURRENT EXECUTIVE 
            DIRECTOR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS, AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF 
            OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE TO SERVE ONE ADDITIONAL TERM.

    (a) Executive Director.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(3) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)), the 
individual serving as Executive Director of the Office of Compliance as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act may serve one additional term.
    (b) Deputy Executive Directors.--Notwithstanding section 302(b)(2) 
of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1382(b)(2)), any individual serving as a Deputy 
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act may serve one additional term.
    (c) General Counsel.--Notwithstanding section 302(c)(5) of such Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1382(c)(5)), the individual serving as General Counsel of the 
Office of Compliance as of the date of the enactment of this Act may 
serve one additional term.

    Approved July 27, 2005.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3071:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):
            June 30, considered and passed House.
            July 13, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>

```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**881 KA 10-02116**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RONNIE DIGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered September 2, 2010. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a resentence pursuant to which Supreme Court added various terms of postrelease supervision (PRS) to the sentence previously imposed on his conviction, following a jury trial, of four counts of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2], [4]), three counts of robbery in the second degree (§ 160.10 [1], [2] [a]), and one count each of assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [former (2)]). Defendant contends that the over seven-year gap between his original sentencing and his resentencing divested the court of jurisdiction to resentence him pursuant to CPL 380.30 (1) ( see People v Williams
, 14 NY3d 198, 213). Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see People v Dissottle , 68 AD3d 1542, 1543, lv denied 14 NY3d 799; People v Cecere , 39 AD3d 557, 558, lv denied 9 NY3d 873), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNI MA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-56544 

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-05819-DMG-RAO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 5, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District 

Judge.

Plaintiff Anni Ma appeals from the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to Defendants City of Los Angeles (City), Los Angeles Police 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 7 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Department (LAPD), and individual police officers in Ma’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action arising from her arrest for the indecent exposure of her bare breasts and 

nipples. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. 

We affirm.

Ma argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the 

individual officers because they violated her constitutional right to be free from 

false arrest. In the context of an unlawful arrest, officers are entitled to qualified 

immunity if it is at least “reasonably arguable that there was probable cause for 

arrest.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2011). Here,

the officers had “reasonably arguable” probable cause to arrest Ma because 

“reasonable officers could disagree” as to whether California Penal Code section 

314(1)’s prohibition on the exposure of “private parts” includes female breasts and 

nipples. See id.

Ma also contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment 

to the City and LAPD—entities that “may not be held liable under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, unless a policy, practice, or custom of the entity can be shown to be a 

moving force behind a violation of constitutional rights.” Dougherty v. City of 

Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). For the first time on 

appeal, Ma argues that the City and LAPD acted with deliberate indifference 

towards her constitutional rights by incorrectly training officers that section 314(1) 
3 

applies to female breasts and nipples. We decline to exercise our discretion to 

consider Ma’s waived argument, in part because it “depend[s] on the factual record 

developed below,” which has not been fully developed. In re Mercury Interactive 

Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2435

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction

for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals to 100 percent

of such costs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

Mrs. KELLY (for herself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr.

BROWNBACK, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. CHRYSLER, Mr. COX of California, Mr.

DUNCAN, Mr. FORBES, Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania, Mr. FUNDERBURK, Mr.

HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KENNEDY of

Massachusetts, Mr. LATOURETTE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. LONGLEY, Mr.

MCINTOSH, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. METCALF, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas,

Ms. MOLINARI, Ms. PRYCE, Mr. SALMON, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs.

WALDHOLTZ, Mr. WARD, and Mr. WELLER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals to 100 percent of such costs.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Self-Employed Health

5 Fairness Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 2435 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

2 COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS TO

3 100 PERCENT OF SUCH COSTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 162(l)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

6 rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individ7 uals) is amended by striking ‘‘30 percent’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘100 percent’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

11 December 31, 1994.

Æ
§ 236.1035 Field testing requirements. ( a ) Before any field testing of an uncertified PTC system, or a product of an uncertified PTC system, or any regression testing of a certified PTC system is conducted on the general rail system, the railroad requesting the testing must provide: ( 1 ) A complete description of the PTC system;
( 2 ) An operational concepts document;
( 3 ) A complete description of the specific test procedures, including the measures that will be taken to protect trains and on-track equipment;
( 4 ) An analysis of the applicability of the requirements of subparts A through G of this part to the PTC system that will not apply during testing;
( 5 ) The date the proposed testing shall begin;
( 6 ) The test locations; and
( 7 ) The effect on the current method of operation the PTC system will or may have under test.
( b ) FRA may impose additional testing conditions that it believes may be necessary for the safety of train operations.
( c ) Relief from regulations other than from subparts A through G of this part that the railroad believes are necessary to support the field testing, must be requested in accordance with part 211 of this title.
§ 234.409 Submission of periodic updates to the Crossing Inventory. ( a ) *Duty of primary operating railroad.* Each primary operating railroad shall submit up-to-date and accurate crossing data to the Crossing Inventory for each highway-rail and pathway crossing (except for a grade-separated or closed highway-rail or pathway crossing) through which it operates, consistent with the Inventory Guide. Updated crossing data shall be submitted to the Crossing Inventory at least every three (3) years from the date of the most recent submission of data by the primary operating railroad (or on behalf of the primary operating railroad) for the crossing or August 9, 2016, whichever occurs later. For hard-copy submissions to Crossing Inventory, this three-year period shall be measured from mailing date of the most recent submission of data by the primary operating railroad (or on behalf of the primary operating railroad).
( b ) *Duty of operating railroad when operating railroads operate on separate tracks.* For each highway-rail and pathway crossing where operating railroads operate trains on separate tracks through the crossing, each operating railroad shall submit up-to-date and accurate crossing data for certain specified data fields on the Inventory Form, or its electronic equivalent, to the Crossing Inventory at least every three (3) years from the date of the most recent submission of data by that operating railroad (or on behalf of that operating railroad) for the crossing or August 9, 2016, whichever occurs later. For hard-copy submissions to Crossing Inventory, this three-year period shall be measured from mailing date of the most recent submission of data by the operating railroad (or on behalf of the operating railroad). The Inventory Form, or its electronic equivalent, shall be completed and submitted consistent with § 234.403 and the Inventory Guide.
[81 FR 37533, June 10, 2016]
From: karesnel@yahoo.com [mailto:karesnel@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:59 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, 

Karen Snell 

2620 Julian St 

Denver, CO 80211
§ 179.220-6 Thickness of plates. ( a ) The wall thickness, after forming of the inner container shell and 2:1 ellipsoidal heads must be not less than specified in § 179.221-1, or not less than that calculated by the following formula: Where: *d* = Inside diameter in inches; *E* = 0.9 welded joint efficiency; except *E* = 1.0 for seamless heads; *P* = Minimum required bursting pressure in psig; *S* = Minimum tensile strength of plate material in p.s.i. as prescribed in AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix M, Table M1; *t* = Minimum thickness of plate in inches after forming.
( b ) The wall thickness after forming of the inner container heads, if flanged and dished, must be not less than specified in § 179.221-1, or not less than that calculated by the following formula: Where: *E* = 0.9 welded joint efficiency; except *E* = 1.0 for seamless heads; *L* = Main inside radius to which head is dished, measured on concave side in inches; *P* = Minimum required bursting pressure in psig; *S* = Minimum tensile strength of plate material in psi as prescribed in AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix M, Table M1 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter); *t* = Minimum thickness of plate in inches after forming.
( c ) The wall thickness after forming of the cylindrical section and heads of the outer shell must be not less than seven-sixteenths of an inch.
( d ) See § 179.220-9 for plate thickness requirements for inner container when divided into compartments.
[Amdt. 179-9, 36 FR 21340, Nov. 6, 1971, as amended at 66 FR 45390, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 75762, Dec. 31, 2003]
AFS-13-026-E December 10, 2012 Exemption No. 8843C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26738

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8843, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate V18T077K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8843, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8843, as2

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8843, as amended, to February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8843 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8843.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service
Exhibit 32.2


                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 Mammatech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28, 2007, (the
"Report"), I, Mary Sellers, the Chief Financial 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:

1)   The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.


Date:  April 11, 2007
                                           /s/ Mary Sellers
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Mary Sellers, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                    AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT



AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of March 18, 1997 between CHIRON CORPORATION (the
"Borrower") and MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK (the "Bank").

                                W I T N E S S E T H :

WHEREAS, the parties hereto have heretofore entered in a Revolving Credit
Agreement dated as of March 23, 1996 (as heretofore amended, the "Agreement");

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term
hereof and amend the Guaranty thereunder.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION 1.  DEFINITIONS; REFERENCES. Unless otherwise specifically defined
herein, each term used herein which is defined in the Agreement shall have the
meaning assigned to such term in the Agreement.

SECTION 2.  Section 1 of the Agreement is amended by replacing the date March
22, 1997 with the date March 21, 1998.

SECTION 3.  REPRESENTATIONS.  The Borrower hereby confirms and repeats each of
the representations and warranties set forth in the Agreement on and as of the
date of this Amendment No. 1 as if made on and as of such date and as if each
reference therein to the Agreement referred to the Agreement as modified hereby,
and represents and warrants that no Event of Default or other event, which with
the giving of notice or lapse of time, or both, would constitute such an Event
of Default has occurred and is continuing.

SECTION 4.  AGREEMENT AS AMENDED.  Except as expressly amended hereby, the
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with the terms
thereof.

SECTION 5.  GOVERNING LAW.  This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

SECTION 6.  CONDITIONS TO EFFECTIVENESS.  This Amendment No. 1 shall become
effective as of the date (i) the Bank shall have received a duly executed
counterpart hereof signed by the Borrower and (ii) the Bank shall have received
from Novartis A.G. (successor to Ciba-Geigy Limited, (the "Guarantor") an
unconditional guaranty of up to $50,000,000 of the Borrower's principal payment
obligations hereunder and under the Note, along with a legal opinion as to the
enforceability thereof.


<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Bank have caused this Amendment No. 1
to be duly executed as of the date first above written.

                                            CHIRON CORPORATION

                                            By: /s/ JE Kent
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Name:
                                                Title: VP and Treasurer

                                            MORGAN GUARANTY TRUST COMPANY
                                                     OF NEW YORK

                                            By: /s/ Diana H. Imhof
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Name: Diana H. Imhof
                                                Title: Vice President