alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Judith Lytel [mailto:jlytel@comcast.net] 

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:06 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Mental health parity

Comments regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

Pg. 19157, II B specific areas 1 & 4 

 

We are clinical psychologists who provide EEG Biofeedback treatment to individuals 

with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. EEG Biofeedback is 

an empirically validated and widely recognized effective non-medication treatment for 

ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50 studies evaluating the 

effectiveness of EEG Biofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, Substance Use disorders 

and Autism. A recent review of this literature concluded that “EEG Biofeedback meets 

the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for” Clinical 

Guidelines “for treatment of ADHD.” This means that EEG Biofeedback meets the same 

criteria as medication for treating ADHD, and that EEG Biofeedback “should always be 

considered as an intervention for this disorder by the clinician”. 

This service has been denied by Aetna, Amerigroup, Blue Cross, Cigna, Medicaid, and 

United Behavioral Health. 

This is restriction & limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health 

problem. The reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial fall into two 

categories: 1) our company does not cover Biofeedback for Mental Health problems or 2) 

there is not yet sufficient evidence for the efficacy of EEG Biofeedback. Thus, they are 

using evidence-based criteria that are far more restrictive for Mental Health services than 

the criteria used for Medical/Surgical services. There are many routine medical and 

surgical procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does 

EEG Biofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are generally not limited 

because of concerns about how many controlled studies have been performed about them. 

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

require that employers and health insurance plans pay for the same range and scope of 

services for Behavioral Treatments as they do for Medical/Surgical benefits, and that a 

plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care criteria and reviews for Mental 

Health and Substance Abuse disorders when compared to Medical/Surgical. Currently, 

plans are being more restrictive in how they review evidenced-based Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse Treatments when compared to Medical/Surgical treatments. This 

violates both the intent and letter of the parity statue. We hope that the regulations will 

clarify that this can not continue. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in this important matter.
Judith Lytel, Psy. D.

Leslie Sternberg, Psy.D.

North Bridge Psychological Associates

525 Main St, P.O. Box 2729 

Acton MA 01720

ActonNeurofeedback.com
#### § 230.105 Lateral motion.

(a) *Condemning limits.* The total lateral motion or play between the hubs of the wheels and the boxes on any pair of wheels shall not exceed the following limits:

| | Inches |
| --- | --- |
| Engine truck wheels (with swing centers) | 1 |
| Engine truck wheels (with rigid centers) | 11/2 |
| Trailing truck wheels | 1 |
| Driving wheels | 3/4 |

(b) *Limits increased.* These limits may be increased on steam locomotives operating on track where the curvature exceeds 20 degrees when it can be shown that conditions require additional lateral motion.

(c) *Non-interference with other parts.* The lateral motion shall in all cases be kept within such limits that the driving wheels, rods, or crank pins will not interfere with other parts of the steam locomotive.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00653- CR The State of Texas, App ellant

v. Michael Yanez , Appellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 147 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 13- 2015 73, TH E H ONO RAB LE CLIF F ORD B ROW N, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, the State of Texas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appea l. We g rant the motion and dismi ss the appea l. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.2(a)
. 1

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Field Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Mar ch 11, 2015 Do Not Publish

I n the motion, the State also reque sts that the issuance of the mandate be expedited based 1 on the par ties’ ag ree ment. We gr ant the State’s r equest. SeeTex. R. App. P . 18.1(c)
.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**Certification
      Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.** § **1350)**





The
      undersigned, as the chief financial officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies,
      to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      period ended September 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      PAB
      Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
      certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
      purpose.





Dated
      this 9th day of November, 2005.







*/s/
                Donald J. Torbert, Jr.*Donald
                J. Torbert, Jr.Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer














A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      PAB Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by PAB Bankshares, Inc. and furnished
      to the SEC or its staff upon request.
#### § 236.326 Mechanical locking removed or disarranged; requirement for permitting train movements through interlocking.

When mechanical locking of interlocking machine is being changed or is removed from the machine, or locking becomes disarranged or broken, unless protection equivalent to mechanical locking is provided by electric locking or electric circuits, train movements through the interlocking shall not be permitted until each switch, movable-point frog or derail in the route is spiked, clamped or blocked in proper position so that it cannot be moved by its controlling lever, and then train movements shall not exceed restricted speed until the interlocking is restored to normal operation. It will not be necessary to comply with this requirement at interlockings where protection is in service in accordance with section 303, provided that the signal controls are arranged so that the signals cannot display an aspect the indication of which is less restrictive than “proceed at restricted speed.”
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsApplications of fuzzy theories to multi-objective system optimizationMost of the computer aided design techniques developed so far deal with the optimization of a single objective function over the feasible design space. However, there often exist several engineering design problems which require a simultaneous consideration of several objective functions. This work presents several techniques of multiobjective optimization. In addition, a new formulation, based on fuzzy theories, is also introduced for the solution of multiobjective system optimization problems. The fuzzy formulation is useful in dealing with systems which are described imprecisely using fuzzy terms such as, 'sufficiently large', 'very strong', or 'satisfactory'. The proposed theory translates the imprecise linguistic statements and multiple objectives into equivalent crisp mathematical statements using fuzzy logic. The effectiveness of all the methodologies and theories presented is illustrated by formulating and solving two different engineering design problems. The first one involves the flight trajectory optimization and the main rotor design of helicopters. The second one is concerned with the integrated kinematic-dynamic synthesis of planar mechanisms. The use and effectiveness of nonlinear membership functions in fuzzy formulation is also demonstrated. The numerical results indicate that the fuzzy formulation could yield results which are qualitatively different from those provided by the crisp formulation. It is felt that the fuzzy formulation will handle real life design problems on a more rational basis.Document ID19910006699Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRao, S. S.*(Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN, United States)*Dhingra, A. K.*(Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-177573NAS 1.26:177573A-91029Accession Number91N16012Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCA2-223Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910006699.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Christopher Bingham, Respondent, v. Richard V. Evans, Appellant.

Judgment and order of Oneida County Court, affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ENRIQUE ORTUNO-ORTIZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50142

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-03355-GT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Gordon Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2016**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Enrique Ortuno-Ortiz appeals the 14-month custodial sentence and the oneyear term of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

improper entry by an alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

 

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JAN 25 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-50142

Ortuno-Ortiz argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

explain the sentence adequately. He asserts that the court failed to cite any 

reasons for the upward variance, erroneously paraphrased the presentence report, 

and did not address his non-frivolous mitigating arguments. We review for plain 

error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 

2010), and find none. The record reflects that the court considered Ortuno-Ortiz’s 

sentencing arguments, but believed that an upward variance to 14 months was 

warranted in light of Ortuno-Ortiz’s three prior immigration convictions and the 

length of the sentences imposed in those cases. Its explanation was sufficient. 

See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Ortuno-Ortiz also contends that his custodial sentence and supervised release 

term are substantively unreasonable in light of his motive for reentry and status as 

a deportable alien. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in 

light of the totality of the circumstances, including Ortuno-Ortiz’s criminal history. 

See id.; U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1 cmt. n.5 (supervised release for deportable alien is 

appropriate if it would provide added deterrence and protection). 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.8

CFO CERTIFICATION

I, Derek J. Kerr, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this amendment to quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
America West Airlines, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report.
|  
|3. |  | [intentionally omitted]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|  
|4. |  | [intentionally omitted]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|  
|5. |  | [intentionally omitted]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:
January 12, 2004 |  | /s/ Derek J. Kerr      
|                       |  |                        
|                       |  | Derek J. Kerr          
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
§ 1150.6 Financial information. ( a ) The manner in which applicant proposes to finance construction or acquisition, the kind and amount of securities to be issued, the approximate terms of their sale and total fixed charges, the extent to which funds for financing are now available, and whether any of the securities issued would be underwritten by industries to be served by the proposed line. Explain how the fixed charges will be met.
( b ) As exhibit E a recent balance sheet. As exhibit F, an income statement for the latest available calendar year prior to filing the application.
( c ) A present value determination of the full costs of the proposal. If construction is proposed, the costs for each year of such construction (in a short narrative or by chart).
( d ) A statement of projected net income for 2 years, based upon traffic projections. Where construction is contemplated, the statement should represent the 2 years following completion of construction.
§ 218.107 Additional operational requirements for hand-operated crossover switches. ( a ) Each railroad shall adopt and comply with an operating rule which complies with the requirements of this section. When any person including, but not limited to, each railroad, railroad officer, supervisor, and employee violates any requirement of an operating rule which complies with the requirements of this section, that person shall be considered to have violated the requirements of this section.
( b ) *Hand-operated crossover switches, generally.* Both hand-operated switches of a crossover shall be properly lined before rolling and on-track maintenance-of-way equipment begins a crossover movement. A crossover movement shall be completed before either hand-operated crossover switch is restored to normal position.
( c ) *Correspondence of hand-operated crossover switches.* Hand-operated crossover switches shall be left in corresponding position except when: ( 1 ) Used to provide blue signal protection under § 218.27 of this part; or
( 2 ) Used for inaccessible track protection under § 214.327 of this chapter; or
( 3 ) Performing maintenance, testing or inspection of crossover switches in traffic control system (TCS) territory; or
( 4 ) One crew is using both tracks connected by the crossover during continuous switching operations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

 Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a meeting of the DAB-ESGR. This meeting will focus on the status of DoD actions and recommendations from previous DAB meetings, relevant discussion on U.S. Government inter-agency Transition Assistance study and successful employer support programs in four States. This meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

0830-1230 hrs, 12 September 2007.

*Location:*                         Federal Room, Hotel Washington, 15th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Interested attendees may contact MAJ Elaine M. Gullotta at 703-696-1385 ext. 540, or e-mail at                         *elaine.gullotta@osd.mil.*

## Agenda

0830 Convene (Mr. Chris P.A. Komisarjevsky, Acting Chairman).

0835 Oath of Office (Mr. Frank Wilson, FACA CMO).

0840 Review of Last Meeting Minutes/New Charter.

0850 Honorable Thomas F. Hall, Assistant Secretary of Defense Reserve Affairs.

0900 Mr. James G. Rebholz, National Chairman, ESGR.

Dr. L. Gordon Sumner, Jr., Ph.D., Executive Director, ESGR.

0930 Commission on the National Guard and Reserve Discussion, Thomas Eldridge, WSO-CNGR.

1030 State Perspectives: Joseph Thomas, Tennessee, State Chairman, ESGR; Barry Spear, Iowa, State Chairman, ESGR; Dennis Shulstad, Minnesota, State Chairman, ESGR; Ernest Loomis, New Hampshire, State Chairman, ESGR.

1130 Transition Assistance Update, James L. Scott II, Director, Individual and Family Policy OASD/RA (M&P).

1200 Board Discussion.

1230 Adjourn.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Major E. Gullotta, 703-696-1386 ext. 540.

Dated: August 24, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

[FR Doc. 07-4257 Filed 8-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
-----Original Message----- 

From: don@greenershelter.org [mailto:don@greenershelter.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:03 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am a long-term fighter against chronic depression and mental 

confusion, brough on by multiple work-related head traumas. The head 

is a part of the physical body, too, and injuries to it, physical or 

chemical, deserve as much equitabilty of health care coverage as any 

other part of the body. 

So 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, 

Don Stephens 

P.O.Drawer 1441 

Spokane, WA 99210
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-714 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Cooperation 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and KAZAKHSTAN 

Signed at Astana June 20, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
KAZAKHSTAN 

 Defense: Cooperation 

 Agreement signed at Astana June 20, 2010; 

 Entered into force July 14, 2010.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/6/15 8:39 AM

Received: May 02, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8im4-s9lg

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0262

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I support the proposed regulation defining who is a â€œfiduciaryâ€of an employee benefit plan 

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as a result of giving 

investment advice to a plan or its participants or beneficiaries. 

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ac87ae&format=xml&showor... 5/6/2015