alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.115 Assurance required. ( a ) *General.* Either at the application stage or the award stage, Federal agencies must ensure that applications for Federal financial assistance or awards of Federal financial assistance contain, be accompanied by, or be covered by a specifically identified assurance from the applicant or recipient, satisfactory to the designated agency official, that each education program or activity operated by the applicant or recipient and to which these Title IX regulations apply will be operated in compliance with these Title IX regulations. An assurance of compliance with these Title IX regulations shall not be satisfactory to the designated agency official if the applicant or recipient to whom such assurance applies fails to commit itself to take whatever remedial action is necessary in accordance with § 25.110(a) to eliminate existing discrimination on the basis of sex or to eliminate the effects of past discrimination whether occurring prior to or subsequent to the submission to the designated agency official of such assurance.
( b ) *Duration of obligation.* ( 1 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide real property or structures thereon, such assurance shall obligate the recipient or, in the case of a subsequent transfer, the transferee, for the period during which the real property or structures are used to provide an education program or activity.
( 2 ) In the case of Federal financial assistance extended to provide personal property, such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which it retains ownership or possession of the property.
( 3 ) In all other cases such assurance shall obligate the recipient for the period during which Federal financial assistance is extended.
( c ) *Form.* ( 1 ) The assurances required by paragraph (a) of this section, which may be included as part of a document that addresses other assurances or obligations, shall include that the applicant or recipient will comply with all applicable Federal statutes relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683, 1685-1688).
( 2 ) The designated agency official will specify the extent to which such assurances will be required of the applicant's or recipient's subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors, transferees, or successors in interest.
PETITION TO: SECRETARY THOMAS E. PEREZ, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Millions of Americans like me are counting on our 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts fora secure
financial future — and-we've worked hard to build and grow our savings. These plans often involve complex
financial decisions, so many of us have to use investment professionals for guidance. Loopholes in the current
law make it easy for some on Wall Street to take advantage of hardworking Americang and line their own
pockets with our retirement savings. Last year alone, hidden fees, unfair risk, and bad investment advice
reduced Americans’ retirement savings by as much as $17 billion. It’s time to close this loophole and ensure a
high standard that holds anyone who gives financial advice genuinely accountable for helping us choose the best
investments. As one of your constituents, I’m counting on you to work to close the loophole now.

| Ms. Theresa Mutzabaugh
f PO Box 56 -
| eet, i Duncannon, PA 17020-0056

Duncannon, PA 17020-0086
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1404

JOHN A. LANGWORTHY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT L. DEAN; RICHARD P. CRANE; SUE DUDLEY;

DOUGLAS M. DUNCAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-98-2631-AW)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Langworthy, Appellant Pro Se. Maureen Mullen Dove, Assistant Attorney General, Elisabeth Ann Sachs, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Charles Wellington

Thompson, Jr., County Attorney, Sharon Veronica Burrell, Joanne

Robertson, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John Langworthy appeals the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district

court’s order denying relief in his civil action. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Langworthy v. Dean, No. CA-98-2631-AW (D. Md. Mar. 10,

1999). 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
From: evelynmac1@mac.com [mailto:evelynmac1@mac.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:02 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 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, 

Evelyn McIntosh 

333 Honeysuckle Dr. 

Fairfield, CA 94533
#### § 236.765 Locking, mechanical.

An arrangement of locking bars, dogs, tappets, cross locking and other apparatus by means of which interlocking is effected between the levers of an interlocking machine and so interconnected that their movements must succeed each other in a predetermined order.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 2010 

As a concerned Virginian, 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, 

Nick Penning 

911 N. Lexington St. 

Arlington, VA 22205
#### § 234.265 Timing relays and timing devices.

Each timing relay and timing device shall be tested at least once every twelve months. The timing shall be maintained at not less than 90 percent nor more than 110 percent of the 41 predetermined time interval. The predetermined time interval shall be shown on the plans or marked on the timing relay or timing device. Timing devices which perform internal functions associated with motion detectors, motion sensors, and grade crossing predictors are not subject to the requirements of this section.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0735 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Jay Gattis 

Address: 

2900 Bristol St. Ste A108 

Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 

Email: jaygattis@yahoo.com 

Phone: 714-432-0042 

General Comment 

I am very supportive of most of the provisions of the interim final rules under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. These rules address many of 

the inequities in health insurance coverage of mental health care when compared to medical/surgical 

care that I have observed in the course of my mental health practice. 

However, in my opinion, two areas have not been sufficiently clarified. I am quite concerned that 

unless these points are more clearly specified in the final regulations, loopholes will remain that will 

permit widespread violation of the legislative intent of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental 

Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: 

1. In my opinion, the interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the 

comprehensive scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse services and 

medical/surgical services. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the 

Departments in the interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for 

MH/SUD must be comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both across 

and within each classification. Unless parity in scope of services is required in the final regulations, 

the intent of the Act will not be achieved. 

2. I strongly support the application of parity requirements to both QTLs and NQTLs as being 

consistent with the Act and allowing for broad application of the parity requirement with regard to 

treatment limitations. However, in order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must 

specify more clearly that any NQTLs that are applied by plans must be comparable for MH/SUD and 

medical surgical benefits, and that any NQTLs for MH/SUD must be no more restrictive than NQTLs 

that are predominant across the broad range of 

medical/surgical benefits.Thank you, Dr. Jay Gattis 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 04, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae5ee3 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 46647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4067]



[[Page 46647]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee J--Population and Patient-Oriented Training.
    Date: October 29-30, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Westin Arlington Gateway, 801 North Glebe Road, 
Arlington, VA 22203.
    Contact Person: Ilda M. McKenna, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Research Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8111, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-7481, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1578767e707b7b747c5578747c793b7b7c7d3b727a63"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="701d131b151e1e1119301d11191c5e1e19185e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 13, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4067 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 260.5 Eligible purposes. ( a ) Financial assistance under this part is available solely to: ( 1 ) Acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail freight or passenger equipment or facilities, including track, components of track, bridges, yards, buildings, and shops;
( 2 ) Refinance outstanding debt incurred for purposes described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
( 3 ) Develop or establish new intermodal or railroad facilities.
( b ) Financial assistance under this part cannot be used for railroad operating expenses.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Sept-30-1996
<CASH>                        1,453,754
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 9,000
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,462,754
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,462,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,462,754
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,462,754
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,256,397
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              303,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               952,684
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               10,999,850
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  11,952,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 745.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 2, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00838-CV

IN RE GAIL NEWTON AND DENNIS NEWTON, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01623-2019

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this proceeding for want of 

jurisdiction.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. TREMAYNE K. GRAHAM, a/k/a Kiki, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-01092-HMH-10; 6:09-cv-70072-HMH)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 22, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tremayne K. Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tremayne K. Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                  YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 
                                           1998         1997        1996  
                                                  (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS,
                                                  EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA
 
BASIC
  AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING             10,768       10,736      10,736
  CONTINGENT SHARES                         (40)         (54)        (60)
  UNALLOCATED SHARES -
   EMPLOYEES' STOCK
    OWNERSHIP PLAN                         (312)        (287)       (368)
        TOTAL                            10,416       10,395      10,308
  INCOME FROM CONTINUING
   OPERATIONS                            $5,499       $7,914      $4,631
  NET INCOME/(LOSS)                      $5,499       $7,914     $(1,536)
  PER SHARE AMOUNTS:
  INCOME FROM CONTINUING
   OPERATIONS                             $ .53        $ .76       $ .45
  NET INCOME/(LOSS)                       $ .53        $ .76       $(.15)
DILUTED
  AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING             10,768       10,736      10,736
  ASSUMED CONVERSION OF
    CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES               11,297       11,821      11,821
  CONTINGENT SHARES                         (40)         (54)        (60)
  UNALLOCATED SHARES -
    EMPLOYEES' STOCK
    OWNERSHIP PLAN                         (312)         (287)      (368)
    STOCK OPTIONS                         ___53        ________
       TOTAL                             21,766         22,216     22,129
    INCOME FROM CONTINUING
       OPERATIONS                        $5,499          $7,914    $4,631
    ADD CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES
     INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION
     OF DEFERRED CHARGES, NET
     OF INCOME TAXES                      4,237           4,392     4,386
          TOTAL                          $9,736         $12,306    $9,017
     NET INCOME/(LOSS)                   $5,499          $7,914  $ (1,536)
     ADD CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES
      INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION
      OF DEFERRED CHARGES, NET
      OF INCOME TAXES
          TOTAL                           4,237           4,392     4,452
     PER SHARE AMOUNTS:                  $9,736         $12,306    $2,916
     INCOME FROM CONTINUING
       OPERATIONS                        $  .45         $   .55    $   .41
     NET INCOME                          $  .45         $ .  55    $   .13
Exhibit
3





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 Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin
L. Cornwell, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the
      Company.














/s/
Kevin L. Cornwell


Kevin L.
Cornwell


Chief
Executive Officer


May 10,
2010








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
§ 1104.15 Certification of eligibility for Federal benefits under 21 U.S.C. 862. ( a ) An individual who is applying in his or her name for a certificate, license or permit to operate as a rail carrier must complete the certification set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. This certification is required if the transferee in a finance proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 11323 and 11324 is an individual. The certification also is required if an individual applies for authorization to acquire, to construct, to extend, or to operate a rail line.
( b ) Certification:
I ___ (Name) ___, certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that I have not been convicted, after September 1, 1989, of any Federal or State offense involving the distribution or possession of a controlled substance, or that if I have been so convicted, I am not ineligible to receive Federal Benefits, either by court order or by operation of law, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 862.
[54 FR 48250, Nov. 22, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 52711, Oct. 8, 1996; 64 FR 53268, Oct. 1, 1999; 67 FR 5515, Feb. 6, 2002]
-----Original Message----- 

From: mary.maryemurphy@gmail.com [mailto:mary.maryemurphy@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:03 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 03, 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, 

Mary Murphy 

P.O.Box 49626 

Athens, GA 30604