alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Office of Regulationas and Interpretatations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
ATIN: Conflict of Interest

Room N05655

US Dept of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20210

Dear Members;

The new fiduciary rules will have a severe unintended consequence that is bad for
middle class America. First of all I am 68 years old and nearing retirement so these new
laws would not effect me personally anyway. By the time they are implemented I will be
gone from the business except for a few favored clients who have become friends. I can
however tell you unequivocally these changes would hurt the small investor.

You must understand, the little guy isn't comparing various stock market investments and
methodologies with each other, he is comparing them to the ease of doing nothing and the
false emotionally secure feeling of investing in fixed interest accounts.

I specialized in these folks because no one else wanted to take the person with $13,000
to invest. My typical client had around $50,000 and was in a fixed interest account
somewhere. I was able to educate them, teach them that losing a net of 1% a year to
inflation was a real loss and the fact that their account statement said they now had
$50,100 was not a true reading of what had taken place over the last 12 months and what
their nest egg could now do.

These proposed new rules would make this sort of person frankly unprofitable to keep as
aclient. It would require more time and money than they would be worth. Advisors will
absolutely start abandoning smaller clients....which some people mistakenly think would
be great. These clients would now be stuck with a couple of bad options. One, remain
ina self made rut doing what the fellow I met last week was doing with his
$17,000......paying a 401k administrator 1.2% expense fees while earning 30% ina
money market fund for a real loss of - .90%. That doesn't even include the 2.1%
inflation we had last year.

Option 2 would be go to the media and discover some one-size-fits-all media guru who
by not addressing specific recommendations can make money by urging people to call a
800# and be back door compensated merely by the number of phone calls he generates.

For these folks there isn't an option #3. The person I served over the years would no
more go to a Robo-advisor than walk across a busy freeway blindfolded and in fact
would have the same basic emotional response to either option.


Pure and simple these changes will drive advisors to take on only clients with lots of
wealth and leave the middle class totally underserved.

Remember, DALBAR studies have shown over and over investors with an advisor
outperform those without one. That is because we keep people in the market during
rough waters. Robo-Advisor, Mr. TV Stock Expert and the bureacrat enforcing these
laws do NOT!.

Not everyone is interested in the very best deal...... the majority are more concerned with a
reasonable deal backed by an educated opinion. Don't run off those with the educated
opinions and leave the clients to have their raw emotions make their investment decisions
for them.

Thank You

— bt ee
thur Rossetti

Licensed since 1976
#### § 199.219 Pre-duty use.

Each operator shall prohibit a covered employee from using alcohol within four hours prior to performing covered functions, or, if an employee is called to duty to respond to an emergency, within the time period after the employee has been notified to report for duty. No operator having actual knowledge that a covered employee has used alcohol within four hours prior to performing covered functions or within the time period after the employee has been notified to report for duty shall permit that covered employee to perform or continue to perform covered functions.
#### Grace de Lancey, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry B. Heylman, Individually and as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Harriet A. Heylman, Deceased, Maude H. P. Heylman, Wife of Said Henry B. Heylman, Emma Adel Heylman, Harlem Savings Bank and James Edward Graybill, as Substituted Trustee Under Last Will and Testament of William M. Weil, Deceased, Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

October, 1910.)

Partition — Procedure for partition — Real property partible in single action — Property owned in common by all owners.

Partition can be sought in one' action of only such separate parcels of land as are owned in common by all the owners, each defendant having an interest in each and every parcel.

*268Demurrers to a complaint in partition.

Gustave Frey and E. D. Miner, for plaintiff.

Pickard Krause, for Henry B. Heylman.

Arthur Watson, for Emma Adel Heylman.

Brady, J.

The -complaint herein, besides other relief, seeks the partition or sale of three separate parcels of land numbered therein parcels 1, 2 and. 3. It appears therefrom that the plaintiff and the defendants Emma A. Heylman and Henry B. Heylman are each* seized in fee of. an equal undivided one-third part of or interest in parcels Hos. 1 and 3, and that parcel Ho. 2 is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant Emma A. Heylman alone, one-third being vested in plaintiff and two-thirds in the defendant Emma A. Heylman, the defendant Henry B. Heylman not being a tenant in common with plaintiff therein. The defendants Emma A. Heylman and Henry B. Heylman appear by separate attorneys and interpose separate demurrers to the complaint upon the ground that causes of action have been improperly joined therein in that, although not separately numbered, the complaint states one cause of action for the partition or sale of -parcels 1 and 3, which are owned by plaintiff and the two defendants named above, -and -another cause of action for the partition or sale of parcel Ho. 2, which is owned by the plaintiff and the defendant Emma A. Heylman only. I am of the opinion that the demurrers are well taken; in other words, that partition can be sought in one action of only such separate parcels of land as are owned in common by all the owners, each defendant having an interest in each and every parcel. It was so held in -Jackson v. Myers, 14 Johns. 354, and this doctrine was cited with approval in Beach v. Mayor, 45 How. Pr. 370. Similar doctrine is held in Mayor v. Coffin, 90 N. Y. 312. The right of action for partition or sale of real property is provided for by section 1532 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I find nothing therein nor elsewhere that changes the rule. The demurrers *269are, therefore, sustained, but leave is granted to the plaintiff; if she so elect, to divide this action into as many actions as may be necessary for the proper determination of the causes of action stated in the complaint herein. Settle order on notice.

Demurrers sustained.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-0668; Dir ID 2013-NM-017-AD
DocketNo:FAA-2015-1383DirectorateID:DispositionCommentsOriginatingOfficeTrackingNo.:SP03630EN-ENextStep:181FRAN0SNPRMDThesecommentsareinresponsetoanSNPRMIZINoComments/OnlySupportiveCommentsReceived-Ifthisboxischecked,nosignafure5grerequired.NoHasthereferencedserviceinformationbeenrevisedsincetheNPRMwasissued?Ifyes,listlatestrevisionandattachacopy.NotethatchangesbeyondthescopeofthepreviouslypublishedNPRMwillrequireanewnotice.ContacttheDirectoratefocalpointforguidance.LatestRevision.Instructions:Summarizeallcommentsbyissue(notbycommenter)andprovideyourrecommendedresolutionofeachissue.Allcommentsrelatingtothesameissue$hOuldbediscussedtogether.Donotlistalloftheissuesfromonecommentertogether.IfchangestotheADarerequiredbasedonthecorruil.entsreceived,explainwhyanddescribeindetailwhatchange(s)yourecommend.ReferenceFAA-IR-M-8040.1CChapter9.ISSUE1:Selectoneofthefollowing:Chooseone.Ifother,explain:Commenter(s):Clickheretoentertext.WhatchangetotheADactionisrequested?Clickheretoentertext.Whyisthechangerequestedorhowisitjustified?Clickheretoentertext.Doweagree?Yes/NoIfYES,weagreebecauseInsertjustificationMakethefollowingchangestotheAD:ListanychangestotheADIfPARTIALLYAGREE,weagreewithInserttextbecauseInsertjustificationWedisagreewithI.nserttextbecauseInsertjustiflcationMakethefollowingchangestotheAD:ListanychangestotheADIfNO,wedon'tagreebecauseourrationaleISSUE2:Selectoneofthefollowing:Chooseone.Ifother,explain:Clickheretoentertext.Commenter(s):Clickheretoentertext.WhatchangetotheADactionisrequested?Clickheretoentertext.Whyisthechangerequestedorhowisitjustified?Clickheretoentertext.Do weagree?Yes/NoPage1of2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6681

WILLIAM DEANS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. SHEILA LINDSEY, in official and private capacity; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS TREATMENT PROGRAM, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-03247-CMC)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 27, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Deans, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Carol Brooks, Daniel Roy Settana, Jr., MCKAY, CAUTHEN, SETTANA & STUBLEY, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: William Deans seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and denying Deans’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accord Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007). Because Deans filed his appeal of the district court’s original order more than thirty days after the entry of judgment, we deny his appeal of this judgment as untimely. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Deans’s notice of appeal was timely as to the order denying Deans’s Rule 60(b) motion. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Deans’s Rule 60(b)

motion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S. Pines , 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion). Therefore, we affirm the

23 district court’s denial of Deans’s motion. See Deans v. Lindsey , No. 3:07-cv-03247-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2009). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2267

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 to prevent the construction of a gas recovery

treatment facility at the OII site east of downtown Los Angeles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Mr. MARTINEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to prevent the construction of a gas recovery treatment facility at the OII

site east of downtown Los Angeles.

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS FROM SUPERFUND PROHIBITED

4 FOR GAS RECOVERY TREATMENT FACILITY

5 AT OII SITE.

6 Section 111 of the Comprehensive Environmental Re7 sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 is

8 amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
2

•HR 2267 IH

1 ‘‘(q) USE OF FUNDS FOR GAS RECOVERY TREAT2 MENT AT OII SITE PROHIBITED.—No funds available in

3 the Hazardous Substances Superfund may be used for the

4 construction or operation of a gas recovery treatment fa5 cility at the site known as the OII landfill site, located

6 approximately 10 miles east of downtown Los Angeles and

7 covering 190 acres, divided by California Highway 60 (Po8 mona Freeway) and adjacent to the City of Montebello

9 on the South, and the City of Monterey Park on the

10 North.’’.

Æ
§ 299.211 Communications and security requirements. ( a ) All wireless communications between the office, wayside, and onboard components in a PTC system shall provide cryptographic message integrity and authentication.
( b ) Cryptographic keys required under this section shall— ( 1 ) Use an algorithm approved by the National Institute of Standards or a similarly recognized and FRA-approved standards body;
( 2 ) Be distributed using manual or automated methods, or a combination of both; and
( 3 ) Be revoked— ( i ) If compromised by unauthorized disclosure of the cleartext key; or
( ii ) When the key algorithm reaches its lifespan as defined by the standards body responsible for approval of the algorithm.
( c ) The cleartext form of the cryptographic keys shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, modification, or substitution, except during key entry when the cleartext keys and key components may be temporarily displayed to allow visual verification. When encrypted keys or key components are entered, the cryptographically protected cleartext key or key components shall not be displayed.
( d ) Access to cleartext keys shall be protected by a tamper-resistant mechanism.
( e ) If the railroad elects to also provide cryptographic message confidentiality, it shall: ( 1 ) Comply with the same requirements for message integrity and authentication under this section; and
( 2 ) Only use keys meeting or exceeding the security strength required to protect the data as defined in the railroad's PTCSP.
( f ) The railroad, or its vendor or supplier, shall have a prioritized service restoration and mitigation plan for scheduled and unscheduled interruptions of service. This plan shall be made available to FRA upon request, without undue delay, for restoration of communication services that support PTC system services.
#### §§ 28.141-28.148 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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 on Form 10-Q of Century Properties Fund XIX, LP (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:

 

 

(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 Partnership.

 

 

       /s/Steven D. Cordes

Name:  Steven D. Cordes

Date:  August 12, 2011

 

 

       /s/Stephen B. Waters

Name:  Stephen B. Waters

Date:  August 12, 2011

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Page 1 of 1 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information fur Paul Wellstonc arkd Pcto Do tuenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Commcnt On: LR-S-2009-0008-OOQ! 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Dommici Mental Hcalth Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: !RS-~UUV~OOOK:111125. 

Comment un FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Karen Scudder Owens 

Address: 

San Antonio, TX, 

Submitter's Representative: John Corny1 

Government Agency Typc: State 

Government Agency: Senate 

General Comment 

Please consider neurofwdback as a nun-invasive treatment. Thank you.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 OMEGA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: May 10, 2006
    /s/ Donita R. KovalDonita R. KovalChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 234 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 234

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable a 
debt for death or injury caused by the debtor's operation of watercraft 
                     or aircraft while intoxicated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Ehlers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11 of the United States Code to make nondischargeable a 
debt for death or injury caused by the debtor's operation of watercraft 
                     or aircraft while intoxicated.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Boating and Aviation Operation 
Safety Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 523(a)(9) of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, watercraft, or aircraft'' after ``motor vehicle''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendment made by section 2 shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendment made by section 2 
shall not apply with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jyh-rit5

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-2192

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Phillip Wills

General Comment

I am very capable of making my own investment decisions. I do not need any help from any 

government agency
#### Louis Dunbar v. The State.

*No. 774.*

*Decided June 12.*

1. Betting on a Gaming Table or Bank—Evidence.—Where, on a trial for betting on a gaming table or bank, the evidence was, that the parties played on a pool table for drinks at the close of each game, and that the loser paid for the drinks, *JEteld,*that this was betting on a gaming table within the purview of articles 360 and 364, ■Penal Code, although there was no agreement beforehand that the loser should pay for the drinks.

*2.*Charge in Misdemeanor—Practice on Appeal.—In misdemeanor cases, unless the charge of the court is excepted to, and such special additional instructions as may be desired are asked, the court on appeal will net revise the charge, unless radically wrong.

Appeal from the District Court of San Saba. Tried below before Hon. W. M. Allison.

This appeal is from a conviction for betting at a gaming table and bank known as a pool table, the punishment being assessed at a fine of $10.

Ho statement necessary.

*Burleson & Meek,*for appellant.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for betting “at a gam ing table and bank known as a ‘pool table.’ *”*The evidence shows, that appellant and a friend played for the drinks on a pool table; that the loser paid for such drinks; that they had no agreement beforehand that the loser should pay for the drinks; that they played a great many games, and the loser paid for the drinks at the close of each game. This is a betting on a gaming table within the purview of articles 360 and 364 of the Penal Code. Bachellor v. The State, 10 Texas, 258; Tuttle v. The State, 1 Texas Crim. App., 365; Vanwey v. The State, 41 Texas, 639. There is no such error in the charge as requires a reversal of the judgment. “In misdemeanor cases, the de*597fendant must except to the charge of the court at the time, and must ask such additional instructions as he may desire; and, unless he does so in the court below, such charge will not be revised unless radically wrong.” Loyd v. The State, 19 Texas Crim. App., 321; Day v. The State, 21 Texas Crim. App., 213; Comer v. The State, 26 Texas Crim. App., 509; Cole v. The State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 536; Garner v. The State, 28 Texas Crim. App., 561; Finney .v. The State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 184. Exceptions were not reserved to the charge, and special instructions were not requested.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all.present and concurring.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, July 24, 1995 (100), Para 100.10 After Recess--5:02 P.M.]
[Page 1179]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.100.10  after recess--5:02 p.m.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BUNNING, called the House to order.
```
Docket No. FAA-2012-1040
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, November 1, 1995 (138), Para 138.9 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.138.9  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole, pursuant to rule XXX, on the question of whether a certain 
exhibit would be permitted to be used on the floor of the House.

It was decided in the

Yeas

332

affirmative

Nays

86
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: niseterp@gmail.com [mailto:niseterp@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:53 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 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. In addition, many policies limit the number of visits to 

mental health professionals, or put lifetime caps on benefits payable 

for mental health care, including inpatient treatment, that is not 

applied to regular medical care, clearly a discriminatory procedure. 

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

coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Denise Wetzler 

1836 N Stapley #85 

Mesa, AZ 85203