alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 229.25 Tests: Every periodic inspection. Each periodic inspection shall include the following: ( a ) All mechanical gauges used by the engineer to aid in the control or braking of the train or locomotive, except load meters used in conjunction with an auxiliary brake system, shall be tested by comparison with a dead-weight tester or a test gauge designed for this purpose.
( b ) All electrical devices and visible insulation shall be inspected.
( c ) All cable connections between locomotives and jumpers that are designed to carry 600 volts or more shall be thoroughly cleaned, inspected, and tested for continuity.
( d ) *Event recorder.* A microprocessor-based self-monitoring event recorder, if installed, is exempt from periodic inspection under paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section and shall be inspected annually as required by § 229.27(c). Other types of event recorders, if installed, shall be inspected, maintained, and tested in accordance with instructions of the manufacturer, supplier, or owner thereof and in accordance with the following criteria: ( 1 ) A written or electronic copy of the instructions in use shall be kept at the point where the work is performed and a hard-copy version, written in the English language, shall be made available upon request to FRA.
( 2 ) The event recorder shall be tested before any maintenance work is performed on it. At a minimum, the event recorder test shall include cycling, as practicable, all required recording elements and determining the full range of each element by reading out recorded data.
( 3 ) If the pre-maintenance test reveals that the device is not recording all the specified data and that all recordings are within the designed recording elements, this fact shall be noted, and maintenance and testing shall be performed as necessary until a subsequent test is successful.
( 4 ) When a successful test is accomplished, a copy of the data-verification results shall be maintained in any medium with the maintenance records for the locomotive until the next one is filed.
( 5 ) A railroad's event recorder periodic maintenance shall be considered effective if 90 percent of the recorders on locomotives inbound for periodic inspection in any given calendar month are still fully functional; maintenance practices and test intervals shall be adjusted as necessary to yield effective periodic maintenance.
( e ) *Remote control locomotive.* Remote control locomotive system components that interface with the mechanical devices of the locomotive shall be tested including, but not limited to, air pressure monitoring devices, pressure switches, and speed sensors.
( f ) *Alerters.* The alerter shall be tested, and all automatic timing resets shall function as intended.
[45 FR 21109, Mar. 31, 1980, as amended at 58 FR 36614, July 8, 1993; 60 FR 27905, May 26, 1995; 66 FR 4192, Jan. 17, 2001; 70 FR 37939, June 30, 2005; 77 FR 21344, Apr. 9, 2012]
# s Alaska Peninsula 

### al Conference Aleutian Chain**----------~------------------+--£ristol** Bay

May 13,2013
Mr. Dennis J .DeVany Chief, Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington DC 20590
Re: Support Essential Air Service atAdak (ADI<): DOCKETDOT-OST-2000-8556 Mr. DeVany, '· •.,.• ,I

.;·.· 

# / Kodiak Island PribilofIslands

The Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC) is a membership organization representing economic development concerns ofover 150 public and private entities. Southwest Alaska is unique in thatthere is no overland connectivity between communities; our highways are the air or sea. While many may take airtravel as atime-savings luxury, in Adak, air service is the primary connection to the outside world and an integral economic component ofthat community. I am writingto express my strong support for the continuation ofthe Essential Air Service (EAS) program in Alaska, and especially Adak, and to emphasize the crucial access it provides remote communities. Due to the isolated location ofAdak Island, which lacks any road system connection, EAS supported air service is their only form ofscheduled transportation. Adak depends on scheduled air carrier service for freight, passenger, and mail service for basic necessities, access to routine health services and economic welfare. On behalf ofthe SWAMC Board, we would like to extend our gratitude foryour consideration ofour recommendations; please extend Essential Air Service at Adak.

Andy Varner, Executive Director



### Economic development andadvocacyforSouthwestAlaska Economic Development District (EDD) and Alaska Regional Development Organization (ARDOR)
#### Alden Mercantile Company, appellant, v. John A. Randall, Receiver, appellee.

Filed November 16, 1918.

No. 20443.

Judgment: Process: Waiver of Defect. There is a well-marked distinction maintained between judgments rendered in which there has been no service of summons at all and those rendered where there has been service of summons irregularly made. In the former class the judgment may he collaterally impeached, hut in the latter the defect is waived, unless directly assailed.

Appeal from the district court for Grant county: James R. Hanna, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*D. F. Osgood,*for appellant.

*739*Burkett, Wilson & Brown, contra.*

Plaintiff is a policy-holder in a mutual insurance company whose principal place of business was in Lancaster county. This corporation became insolvent, and a receiver was appointed for it. The receiver began an action against the various policy-holders in the district court for Lancaster county. A summons was issued, sent to Grant county, the county of plaintiff’s residence, and a copy served upon him by the deputy sheriff of that county. He made no appearance. Judgment by default was- entered against him. A transcript of the judgment was filed in the district court for Grant county. The summons was regular in form, except that the dates of the answer day and the return day were erroneously made one week more remote than the law provides. The copy served on plaintiff was marked “copy” but was not properly certified. The indorsement recited that the sheriff served this summons on defendants by “reading and delivering a true copy of the within summons to each.”

This action is brought to remove the cloud upon the title to plaintiff’s real estate created by the filing of the transcript. The district court found for the defendant: Plaintiff appeals.

Per Curiam;.

The question is, whether the defects in the summons were mere irregularities, or were so grave as to render the attempted service void. In *Ley v. Pilger,*59 Neb. 561, it was held that the insertion of an erroneous date of return day is merely an irregularity, and does not render the process void. In *Barker Co. v. Central West Investment Co.,*75 Neb. 43, the summons was defective in form, both as to the date of the return day and the answer day. It was held that the summons was not void, merely irregular. *Muchmore v. Guest,*2 Neb. (Unof.) 127. The fact thát erroneous dates were *740inserted for the return and answer days might have been taken advantage of by special appearance, but this not having been done, and judgment rendered, the judgment is not open to collateral attack. *Gandy v. Jolly,*35 Neb. 711; *Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Marder, Luse & Co.,*50 Neb. 283; *Jones v. Danforth, 71*Neb. 722,

Complaint is made that the venue was erroneously stated. The venue of the summons was laid in Lancaster county, but it was -directed to the sheriff of Grant county. This is in accordance with the statute. Rev. St. 1913, secs. 5653, 8549.

Affirmed.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:43 AM 

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, 

susan silver 

29 highland ave 

montclair, NJ 07042
#### John F. Maxfield, Respondent, v. Ann Taylor and another, Appellants.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday October 26, 1995 (135), Para 135.22 Bill Presented to the President]
[Page 1797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.135.22  bill presented to the president

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Oversight, reported that that 
committee did on this day present to the President, for his approval, a 
bill of the House of the following title:

       H.R. 402. An Act to amend the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act, and for other reasons.

  And then,
```
JMK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0328

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JUAN ANASTASIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including May 7, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 7 2020

04/07/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0328
-----Original Message----- 

From: imanikazana@msn.com [mailto:imanikazana@msn.com] 

Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 8:50 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 01, 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, 

imani kazana 

5406 20th Place 

Hyattsville, MD 20782
H. R. 2415

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To designate the United States Customs Administrative Building at the Ysleta/

Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Zaragosa Road in El Paso, Texas,

as the ‘‘Timothy C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States Customs Administrative Building at the

Ysleta/Zaragosa Port of Entry located at 797 South Zaragosa Road

in El Paso, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Timothy

C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Timothy

C. McCaghren Customs Administrative Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 216.21 Notice of track conditions. ( a ) When an FRA Track Inspector or State Track Inspector finds track conditions which may require the issuance of an Emergency order removing the track from service under section 203, Public Law No. 91-458, 84 Stat. 972 (45 U.S.C. 432), the Inspector may issue a notice to the railroad owning the track. The notice sets out and describes the conditions found by the Inspector and specifies the location of defects on the affected track segment. The Inspector provides a copy to the FRA Regional Track Engineer and the FRA Regional Administrator.
( b ) In the event the railroad immediately commences repairs on the affected track and so advises the FRA Regional Track Engineer, the Regional Track Engineer assigns an Inspector to reinspect the track immediately on the completion of repairs. If upon reinspection the Inspector determines that necessary repairs have been completed, he withdraws the Notice of Track Conditions.
#### § 235.14 Notice.

The FRA will publish notice of the filing of an application or a request for reconsideration of an application in the Federal Register and a copy of such notice will be available at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, and on the Federal Docket Management System's Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov.*

[64 FR 70195, Dec. 16, 1999, as amended at 74 FR 25174, May 27, 2009]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2434

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

for lobbying expenses in connection with State legislation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself and Mr. CARDIN) 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 restore

the deduction for lobbying expenses in connection with

State legislation.

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

3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR LOBBYING

4 EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH STATE LEG5 ISLATION.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 162(e)

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to denial

8 of deduction for certain lobbying and political activities)

9 is amended—
2

•HR 2434 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘any State legislature or of’’

2 before ‘‘any local council’’ in the material preceding

3 subparagraph (A), and

4 (2) by striking ‘‘such council’’ in subparagraph

5 (B)(i) and inserting ‘‘such legislature, council,’’.

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The paragraph head7 ing of paragraph (2) of section 162(e) of such Code is

8 amended by inserting ‘‘STATE OR’’ before ‘‘LOCAL’’.

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after

11 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
-----Original Message----- 

From: katma@embarqmail.com [mailto:katma@embarqmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:35 AM 

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. 

It is unfair to discriminate against mental health patients. They 

simply need prescription drugs and regular monitoring and meetings with 

health care professionals, like any other patient, for example, those 

with diabetes, or high blood pressure, or other health issues. 

Higher prices for mental health patients may force them to forgo the 

care they need, and could lead to tragic consequences. 

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

coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

mj millard 

280 John Knox Rd 

Tallahassee, FL 32303
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2157

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Alfredo Contreras-Diaz, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2006

Filed: March 29, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Contreras-Diaz unconditionally pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court1

sentenced him to 41 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. He appeals.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

First, Contreras-Diaz argues that the district court erred by denying in part his

motion to suppress. However, his unconditional guilty plea precludes him from
-2-

raising this argument on appeal. See United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th

Cir. 1994). Second, Contreras-Diaz argues that the district court erred by applying an

enhancement for obstruction of justice and by not granting him a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. Having reviewed the district court’s factual findings and

legal conclusions under the applicable standards of review, we see no error. See

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(e)); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
§ 22.23 Agreements. ( a ) DOT OSDBU may enter into a cooperative agreement with a lender that meets the criteria defined in § 22.21 in order for the lender to become a Participating Lender in the STLP. Such an agreement does not obligate DOT OSDBU to participate in any specific proposed loan that a lender may submit. The existence of a cooperative agreement does not limit the rights of DOT OSDBU to deny a specific loan or establish general policies. The current cooperative agreement is available at *http://www.osdbu.dot.gov/financial/docs/Coop_Agreement.pdf .*
( b ) The cooperative agreement is generally for a minimum period of twenty-four (24) months. DOT OSDBU will consider the cooperative agreement for renewal at the end of the designated term. If a cooperative agreement has expired, no further applications for the STLP shall be submitted to DOT OSDBU by the Participating Lender until a new cooperative agreement is executed by both parties.
( c ) Unless instructed otherwise by DOT OSDBU, after the expiration of the cooperative agreement, the Participating Lender will complete the documentation of any loans which have been given final DOT OSDBU approval prior to expiration of the cooperative agreement.
( d ) Following the expiration of the cooperative agreement, the Participating Lender may, subject to the written concurrence of DOT OSDBU, sell its STLP loans to another bank or to another Participating Lender that assumes the original rights and responsibilities to fund, service and collect the loan or loans.
#### § 234.251 Standby power.

Standby power shall be tested at least once each month.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6728** 

DAVID FRANKLIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , Senior District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00 523

- JBF

- FBS )

Submitted : November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Franklin, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM: David Franklin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifi cate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (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)
. When the district court denies relief on the m erits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Franklin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Franklin’s motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also de ny Franklin’s motion for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 24.10 Appeals. ( a ) *General.* The agency shall promptly review appeals in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and this part.
( b ) *Actions which may be appealed.* Any aggrieved person may file a written appeal with the agency in any case in which the person believes that the agency has failed to properly consider the person's application for assistance under this part. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, the person's eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment required under § 24.106 or § 24.107, or a relocation payment required under this part. The agency shall consider a written appeal regardless of form.
( c ) *Time limit for initiating appeal.* The agency may set a reasonable time limit for a person to file an appeal. The time limit shall not be less than 60 days after the person receives written notification of the agency's determination on the person's claim.
( d ) *Right to representation.* A person has a right to be represented by legal counsel or other representative in connection with his or her appeal, but solely at the person's own expense.
( e ) *Review of files by person making appeal.* The agency shall permit a person to inspect and copy all materials pertinent to his or her appeal, except materials which are classified as confidential by the agency. The agency may, however, impose reasonable conditions on the person's right to inspect, consistent with applicable laws.
( f ) *Scope of review of appeal.* In deciding an appeal, the agency shall consider all pertinent justification and other material submitted by the person, and all other available information that is needed to ensure a fair and full review of the appeal.
( g ) *Determination and notification after appeal.* Promptly after receipt of all information submitted by a person in support of an appeal, the agency shall make a written determination on the appeal, including an explanation of the basis on which the decision was made, and furnish the person a copy. If the full relief requested is not granted, the agency shall inform the person that the determination is the agency's final decision and that the person may seek judicial review of the agency's determination.
( h ) *Agency official to review appeal.* The agency official conducting the review of the appeal shall be either the head of the agency or his or her authorized designee. However, the official shall not have been directly involved in the action appealed.