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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2395

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to eliminate certain requirements on States under the medicaid program with respect to minimum

reimbursement levels for hospitals, nursing facilities, and intermediate

care facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 25, 1995

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

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to eliminate

certain requirements on States under the medicaid program with respect to minimum reimbursement levels for

hospitals, nursing facilities, and intermediate care facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2395 IH

1 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON

2 STATES WITH RESPECT TO MINIMUM LEVELS

3 OF PROVIDER REIMBURSEMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1902(a)(13)(A) of the So5 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(13)(A)) is amend6 ed—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘in the case of nursing facili8 ties’’ and all that follows through ‘‘nursing care, and

9 which,’’; and

10 (2) by striking ‘‘1861(v)(1)(G))) which the

11 State finds,’’ and all that follows through ‘‘services

12 of adequate quality;’’ and inserting

13 ‘‘1861(v)(1)(G)));’’.

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 1996.

Æ
From: etc3rock@aol.com [mailto:etc3rock@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:10 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, 

Lyn Etcetera 

7292 Fountain Ave Apt 211 

West Hollywood, CA 90046
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officer of Biovest International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 21, 2006 |  | /s/ Dr. Steven Arikian                                  
|                      |  | Dr. Steven Arikian, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
§ 1503.659 Petition to reconsider or modify a final decision and order of the TSA decision maker on appeal. ( a ) *General.* Any party may petition the TSA decision maker to reconsider or modify a final decision and order issued by the TSA decision maker on appeal from an initial decision. A party must file a petition to reconsider or modify not later than 30 days after service of the TSA decision maker's final decision and order on appeal and must serve a copy of the petition on each party. The TSA decision maker will not reconsider or modify an initial decision and order issued by an ALJ that has not been appealed by any party to the TSA decision maker and filed with the Enforcement Docket Clerk.
( b ) *Form and number of copies.* A party must file in writing a petition to reconsider or modify. The party must file the original petition with the Enforcement Docket Clerk and must serve a copy of the petition on each party.
( c ) *Contents.* A party must state briefly and specifically the alleged errors in the final decision and order on appeal, the relief sought by the party, and the grounds that support the petition to reconsider or modify. ( 1 ) If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on allegations regarding the consequences of the TSA decision maker's decision, the party must describe and support those allegations.
( 2 ) If the petition is based, in whole or in part, on new material not previously raised in the proceedings, the party must set forth the new material and include affidavits of prospective witnesses and authenticated documents that would be introduced in support of the new material. The party must explain, in detail, why the new material was not discovered through due diligence prior to the hearing.
( d ) *Repetitious and frivolous petitions.* The TSA decision maker will not consider repetitious or frivolous petitions. The TSA decision maker may summarily dismiss repetitious or frivolous petitions to reconsider or modify.
( e ) *Reply petitions.* Any other party may reply to a petition to reconsider or modify, not later than 30 days after service of the petition on that party, by filing a reply with the Enforcement Docket Clerk. A party must serve a copy of the reply on each party.
( f ) *Effect of filing petition.* Unless otherwise ordered by the TSA decision maker, filing a petition pursuant to this section will stay the effective date of the TSA decision maker's final decision and order on appeal.
( g ) *The TSA decision maker's decision on petition.* The TSA decision maker has sole discretion to grant or deny a petition to reconsider or modify. The TSA decision maker will grant or deny a petition to reconsider or modify within a reasonable time after receipt of the petition or receipt of the reply petition, if any. The TSA decision maker may affirm, modify, or reverse the final decision and order on appeal, or may remand the case for any proceedings that the TSA decision maker determines may be necessary.
[74 FR 36039, July 21, 2009, as amended at 75 FR 58334, Sept. 24, 2010]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.31 Senate Bill Referred]
[Page 1533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.31  senate bill referred

  A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the 
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

       S. 1267. An Act to amend the Congressional Award Act to 
     revise and extend authorities for the Congressional Award 
     Board; to the Committee on Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: gavin.ostrom@oracle.com [mailto:gavin.ostrom@oracle.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:34 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, 

Gavin Ostrom 

10001 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. # 1213 

Roseville, CA 95747
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 1538

_____________________________
J OSE R ENE C ANO , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Coleman Lee Robinson , Judge

.
Ju ne 13, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Mr. Cano, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Page 1 of 2 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 28,2009 

Tracking No. 809b3e5f 

Docket: BS-2009-0008 

Rtyuest for lnfclnnation for Paul Wellstune and Pctc Llornenicj Mental I Iealth Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: IRS:21HO~l-OC)08-OC)O I 

K equest for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domcnici Mental Health Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act of 2IK)8 

Document: IRS-2000-0008:0051! 

C'otnme~t on FR Dnc ff E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Elizabeth A. 'l'egan 

Address: 

Warwick, RI, 

Submitter's Reprcsentative; Jack Rccd, Sheldon Whitehouse 

Organhatiun: Self Einployed 

Government Agency Type: Federal 

Chvcrnrnent Agency: HHS 

General Comment 

I am a Cinical Nurse Specialist in Rhodc Island providing mental health treatmctlt 

tbr a wide range of clinical problms. I am writing to request that the parity law for 

mental hcalth treatment includes the same standards of pmof that are used tiir 

medical conditions. For example: Neurufeedback meets thc American Academy 

of Child and Adolescent Psychiat~y criteria for Clinical Guidcl irlcs for treatment of 

ADHD," 'I'liis means that neurol'tedback mcets the same criteria as medication for 

treating ADHU, of which 60% of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off label," and 

that neurofccdback "should always be wnsiderul as an intenlention for this 

disorder by the clinician." 

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Be.haviora1 

Hcalth, R lue Cross, Cigna, md Arnerigroup. 

This is limitat~on of an effective and val idoted treatment for a mental hcal th 

problem. The reasons given by thc insurance companies for this denial fell into 

two categories: I ) our company docs nut cover biofeedback for mental hcalth 

prohlans or 2) there is not yet sufficient evidence for the ef'iicacy of 

neurofeedback. As sudi. thcy ate using evidmce-based cril~ria that are far more 

rwtrictive for mental health services than the criteria which are uscd for 
medicallsurgical senbices. There are marly routine medical and surgical 

procedures which havc far fewer controlled studies about their efticacy than does 

net~rofeedback . These medical and surgical procedures are generally not liinited 

because of cotlcerns about how many controLled studies have been pmlirrrnd 

about them. 

We believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute 

shuuld rcquire that employers and plans pay for the same range md swpc of 

services for behavioral treatments as they do for medical surgical benefits and that 

a plan cannot be morc restrictive in their managed carc criteria and reviews for 

111ental health and substance abuse disorders whm wmparcd to medical surgery. 

I'oday plans are being morc restrictive in hnw they review evidenced-based mental 

health and Substance Abuse Treatmalts when compared to medical surgical 

treatments. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute and we 

hope thdi the regulations will clarify that this can't continue. 

Thank you for your consideration 

Elizabctl~ 'l'egan
§ 232.1 Scope. ( a ) This part prescribes Federal safety standards for freight and other non-passenger train brake systems and equipment. Subpart E of this part prescribes Federal safety standards not only for freight and other non-passenger train brake systems and equipment, but also for passenger train brake systems. This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting or enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.
( b ) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this paragraph or in this part, railroads to which this part applies must comply with all the requirements contained in this part.
( c ) Except for operations identified in § 232.3(c)(1), (4), and (6) through (8), all railroads part of the general railroad system of transportation must operate pursuant to the requirements in subpart H of this part (which contains the requirements in this part 232 as they existed on May 31, 2001), until they are either required to operate pursuant to the requirements contained in subparts A through G of this part or the requirements contained in part 238 of this chapter.
[66 FR 4193, Jan. 17, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 9906, Feb. 12, 2001; 85 FR 80570, Dec. 11, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.476 Internal corrosion control: Design and construction of transmission line. ( a ) *Design and construction.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each new transmission line and each replacement of line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component in a transmission line must have features incorporated into its design and construction to reduce the risk of internal corrosion. At a minimum, unless it is impracticable or unnecessary to do so, each new transmission line or replacement of line pipe, valve, fitting, or other line component in a transmission line must: ( 1 ) Be configured to reduce the risk that liquids will collect in the line;
( 2 ) Have effective liquid removal features whenever the configuration would allow liquids to collect; and
( 3 ) Allow use of devices for monitoring internal corrosion at locations with significant potential for internal corrosion.
( b ) *Exceptions to applicability.* The design and construction requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply to the following: ( 1 ) Offshore pipeline; and
( 2 ) Pipeline installed or line pipe, valve, fitting or other line component replaced before May 23, 2007.
( c ) *Change to existing transmission line.* When an operator changes the configuration of a transmission line, the operator must evaluate the impact of the change on internal corrosion risk to the downstream portion of an existing onshore transmission line and provide for removal of liquids and monitoring of internal corrosion as appropriate.
( d ) *Records.* An operator must maintain records demonstrating compliance with this section. Provided the records show why incorporating design features addressing paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section is impracticable or unnecessary, an operator may fulfill this requirement through written procedures supported by as-built drawings or other construction records.
[72 FR 20059, Apr. 23, 2007]
CRADA Report

NREL/TP-7A1-48424

August 2010

Project Liberty

Cooperative Research and Development 

Final Report

CRADA Number: CRD-07-00245

NREL Technical Contact: Edward J. Wolfrum
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
1

Cooperative Research and Development Final Report

In accordance with Requirements set forth in Article XI.A(3) of the CRADA document, this document is 

the final CRADA report, including a list of Subject Inventions, to be forwarded to the Office of Science

and Technical Information as part of the commitment to the public to demonstrate results of federally 

funded research.

CRADA number: CRD-07-00245

CRADA Title: Project Liberty

Parties to the Agreement: POET, LLC + NREL

Joint Work Statement Funding Table showing DOE commitment:

Abstract of CRADA work:

Summary of Research Results:

NREL hosted two teams of POET Project Liberty analysts for week-long biomass compositional analysis 

(wet chemical analysis) classes (one in 2008, one in 2009). NREL also performed biomass compositional 

on over 70 samples of corn stover feedstock and pretreated corn stover provided by POET. 
2

Subject Inventions listing: None.

Report Date: 4/30/10 Responsible Technical Contact at Alliance/NREL: Wolfrum, Edward J.

This document contains NO confidential, protectable, or proprietary information.
#### John F. Henry and others, Appellants, v. Edwin J. Dunning, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, without costs on affirmance of order. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TROY CRAIG DRISKELL, )

DOC #X04320, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4637

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed July 6, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Philip J. Federico, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         3,631,714
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,250
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               5,226,279
<CASH>                                         103,794
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 325
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       1,004,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,783,951
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              3,851,721
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             34,419
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          618,928
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     5,114,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,979,941)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,783,951
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,786,333
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            284,197
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (6,824)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  55,887
<BENEFITS>                                     793,165
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    215,607
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         2,160,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,050,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,050,167)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,050,167)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 617,508
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            290,147
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               32,145
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             350,713
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               406,907
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                402,722
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 194.1 Purpose.

This part contains requirements for oil spill response plans to reduce the environmental impact of oil discharged from onshore oil pipelines.
§ 236.504 Operation interconnected with automatic block-signal system. ( a ) A continuous inductive automatic train stop or train control system shall operate in connection with an automatic block signal system and shall be so interconnected with the signal system as to perform its intended function in event of failure of the engineer to acknowledge or obey a restrictive wayside signal or a more restrictive cab signal.
( b ) An intermittent inductive automatic train stop system shall operate in connection with an automatic block signal system and shall be so interconnected with the signal system that the failure of the engineer to acknowledge a restrictive wayside signal will cause the intermittent inductive automatic train stop system to perform its intended function.
[49 FR 3386, Jan. 26, 1984]