alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CHRISTIANA COMPANIES, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE 
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,888,000
<SECURITIES>                                 4,611,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,882,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   233,000
<INVENTORY>                                    326,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,877,000
<PP&E>                                      98,536,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,932,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,356,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,619,000
<BONDS>                                     36,149,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,196,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,889,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,356,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,208,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               79,629,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               123,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             765,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,969,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,306,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,663,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,663,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPower flow analysis of two coupled plates with arbitrary characteristicsIn the last progress report (Feb. 1988) some results were presented for a parametric analysis on the vibrational power flow between two coupled plate structures using the mobility power flow approach. The results reported then were for changes in the structural parameters of the two plates, but with the two plates identical in their structural characteristics. Herein, limitation is removed. The vibrational power input and output are evaluated for different values of the structural damping loss factor for the source and receiver plates. In performing this parametric analysis, the source plate characteristics are kept constant. The purpose of this parametric analysis is to determine the most critical parameters that influence the flow of vibrational power from the source plate to the receiver plate. In the case of the structural damping parametric analysis, the influence of changes in the source plate damping is also investigated. The results obtained from the mobility power flow approach are compared to results obtained using a statistical energy analysis (SEA) approach. The significance of the power flow results are discussed together with a discussion and a comparison between the SEA results and the mobility power flow results. Furthermore, the benefits derived from using the mobility power flow approach are examined.Document ID19900017316Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCuschieri, J. M.*(Florida Atlantic Univ. Boca Raton, FL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:182033NASA-CR-182033Accession Number90N26632Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-685PROJECT: RTOP 535-03-11-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017316.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
-----Original Message----- 

From: carlsonb@students.sou.edu [mailto:carlsonb@students.sou.edu] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 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, 

Bridget Carlson 

651 Beach St 

Ashland, OR 97520
-----Original Message----- 

From: bagul@ucdavis.edu [mailto:bagul@ucdavis.edu] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:05 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, 

Babar Gul 

1314 F St 

Davis, CA 95616
-----Original Message----- 

From: adrury8@comcast.net [mailto:adrury8@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:22 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. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Anne Drury 

716 N. 43rd St. Apt. B 

seattle, WA 98103
(

)

July 23, 2015

Joe R. Coronado

TDCJ No775662

Wynne Unit

810 FM 2821Huntsville, Tx. 77349RE: Court ofAppeals Number: 05-00-01979-CR & 05-97-00321-CR

Trial Court Case Number: F96-77084-UK

Style: Coronado Sr., Joe Rodriguez

v.

The State of Texas

- The case has been submitted and is pending consideration.

2. The Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over post-conviction writs and

habeas corpus. Please contact the Court of Criminal Appeals for any forms or

information.

3. The Court has no record of an appeal on file in the above referenced name or trial

court number.

4. Enclosed is a copy of the opinion in your appeal.

5. This Court does not appoint counsel

6. Neither the judges nor the staff of this Court can give legal advice. Therefore, you

may wish to contact your attorney; the trial court; or the State Counsei forOflènders, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 4005, Huntsville, TX,77342 for further information or assistance.
10. Enclosed please find the copies you requested.

x II. The cost for the copies you requested is ( clerk records 2 volumes 148 pages,

reporter records 5 volumes 693 pages, pdr 20 pages, total cost to copy & ship$106.10

Respectftilly,

Is! Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

7
§ 29.806 Upon termination, what happens to the funds associated with the terminated portions of the compact or funding agreement? Upon termination, the Department will reassume the remaining funds associated with the terminated portions of the compact or funding agreement. The Department may: ( a ) Transfer funds associated with transportation services provided by the Department of the Interior to the Department of the Interior; or
( b ) Distribute any funds not transmitted to the Department of the Interior in accordance with applicable law.
§ 24.303 Related nonresidential eligible expenses. The following expenses, in addition to those provided by § 24.301 for moving personal property, shall be provided if the agency determines that they are actual, reasonable, and necessary: ( a ) Connection to available utilities from the replacement site's property line to improvements at the replacement site. (*See* appendix A to this part, *Section 24.303(a) .*)
( b ) Professional services performed prior to the purchase or lease of a replacement site to determine its suitability for the displaced person's business operation including, but not limited to, soil testing or feasibility and marketing studies (excluding any fees or commissions directly related to the purchase or lease of such site). At the discretion of the agency a reasonable pre-approved hourly rate may be established. (*See* appendix A to this part, section 24.303(b).)
( c ) Impact fees and one-time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage, as determined necessary by the agency. (*See* appendix A to this part, section 24.303(c).)
From: Wendy Lang [mailto:wendy@executivebrokerage.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:53 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 

To whom it may concern:

As we embark on yet another attempt to protect consumers with the proposed Department of Labor 

(DOL) Uniform Fiduciary Rule, I think it is important to evaluate the harm this potentially causes for our 

consumers as well an entire group of insurance agents across this country. This regulation, as 

proposed, would be harmful to our industry and to the retail consumers we strive to help. The rule will 

increase compliance costs and litigation risk, enable the DOL to determine what commission is 

"reasonable". I assure you that no insurance company would pay an agent any more commissions than 

they deemed absolutely required to incentivize the agent to continue their independent efforts to 

explain the pros and cons of said products for the consumers to make sound, educated determinations 

on products that are not exposing them to market risk. Independent agents work solely 

on commission, paying for all of their own expenses from overhead and paper to their own life and 

health insurance and retirement plans. I believe this ruling, could jeopardize the livelihood an entire 

group of insurance agents and independent insurance marketing agencies, as well as hurt consumers by 

limiting their choices and distribution channels for products.

In closing, please consider the implications to your ruling as it effects numerous consumers, agents, 

IMO’s and insurance companies in the ability to provide customers with products that do not expose 

them to market risk and provide a solid foundation for savings and retirement options.

.

Wendy Lang

Executive Brokerage Services, Inc.

P.O. Box 15686

Pittsburgh, PA 15244

800-776-9646 or 412-747-7474 ext 126

(direct fax) 877-975-9527

wendy@executivebrokerage.com
-----Original Message----- 

From: Shoshanna09@gmail.com [mailto:Shoshanna09@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:18 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

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

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Betty Schwimmer 

PO Box 1087 

Lewisburg, WV 24901
From: Jim Campese [mailto:jimc@executivebrokerage.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:19 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 

July 20, 2015

To the Department of Labor:

It is my understanding that the Department of Labor wishes to end the exemption of 

broker/dealer annuity agents from the Fiduciary Standard Rule due to perceived suitability 

issues. 

To prevent conflict of interest, however, the following measures have been in place for 

decades:

• The sale of an unsuitable annuity is against the law.

• Every sale must be reviewed by the insurance company for suitability before a 

policy may be issued.

• The insurance company is liable for any unsuitable sale.

There is “scant” evidence that these measures are not serving the consumer, according to a 

study referenced by the DOL. The study also observes that “there are apparently no field 

experiments involving insurance intermediaries in the U.S.” By the DOL’s own admission, 

“direct empirical evidence about the frequency of such misbehavior is limited.” This lack of 

evidence suggests the moral hazard posed by commission on annuity products has been 

overstated. 

There has been no shortage of evidence that the Fiduciary Standard, when applied to annuities, 

would misalign the interests of the client and the fiduciary.

• Fee structures are notoriously complex and difficult to interpret. 

• According to a study by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a fiduciary 

advisor is 11 times more likely to be subject to an enforcement action than a 

suitability broker.

• Fiduciaries get paid based on a client’s Assets Under Management (AUM). 

Annuity products provide income to clients, which decreases their AUM, which 

decreases the amount by which the fiduciary gets paid.

• The Rule makes the recommendation of riskier, more volatile products more 

advantageous to the fiduciary.
The Fiduciary Standard-only Rule would harm the less-affluent:

• Annuity commission is earned once, but fee-based compensation is paid by the 

client every year for life. The Fiduciary would receive substantially more of the 

client’s money than the commissioned agent. 

• Fee-based advisors typically require at least $250,000 of investable assets before 

taking on a client. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of an 

IRA account and 401(k) plan in 2011 was $34,000 and $30,000, respectively. The 

vast majority of Americans would not have enough assets to use an annuity.

Right now, Americans who need annuity protection are insulated from conflict of interest and 

are not excluded by the modesty of their assets. The sale of annuity products under a Fiduciaryonly rule would break that system; it would become an arrangement that breeds moral hazard.

We respectfully urge the Department of Labor to preserve our exemption from the FiduciaryOnly requirement.

Jim Campese

Executive Brokerage Services, Inc.

800-776-9646 Ext 122
NO. 07-07-0185-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 19, 2008

	______________________________

	ORLIN ANARIBA, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY;

	NO. D-1-DC-06-301571; HONORABLE CHARLES F. BAIRD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, enhanced by one prior aggravated assault, and subsequent sentence of eight years confinement in the Institutional Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  We affirm.

	Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744- 45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.  Appellant has not filed a response.

	By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice

Do not publish.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/18/15 8:54 PM

Received: July 17, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k19-g3qk

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2519

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

The government needs to keep it's HANDS OFF any decisions to be made on 401k s, IRAs, or 

any other retirement account. They have done messed up the Social Security program and don't 

need to get their greedy little hands to close to any bodies retirement. They do not have a good 

record with the stock market, not to mention they have insider information that may be a conflict 

of interest to us common folk.
CAUSE NO. Fl4284 STATE OF TEXAS 

## vs. NICHOLAS EDWARD AYERS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SAID HONORABLE COURT: 

### FILED FOR RECORD 20\5SEP 23

## ~I'\\O: 

### 45**"'\~·** ;'

_**_.:;~.;,.~;G'.~**

### "01¥i'p,\~(**.~s**

### E P'f xr,s MP,P.\Oll co0,11"1 'P IN THE DISTRICTCd0RT

# '3.~o~ . 276TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MARION COUNTY, TEXAS

COMES NOW Nicholas Edward Ayers, defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, and gives notice ofappeal from the sentence imposed against him in this cause on August 27, 2015, all pursuant to Rule 25.2, Rules of Appellate Procedure, and further shows that this is an appeal from a bench trial in which Defendant pleaded guilty and his punishment was assessed by the court at eighteen years confinement in the Institutional Division ofthe Texas Department ofCriminal Justice. WHEREFORE, defendant requests the Clerk to file this notice of appeal and immediately send one copy to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Judicial District and one copy to the State's attorney and that the Clerk prepare a Clerk's Record in accordance with Rule 34.5(a)(2), Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure, to be sent to the Clerk ofthe Court ofAppeals. Respectfully submitted,

# ~ Counsel for Defendant 202 S. Marshall, P.O. Box 276 Jefferson, Texas 75657 903-665-7111 Fax: 903-665-7167 Texas Bar #07038000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have hand delivered atrue copy ofthe foregoing Notice of Appeal to Angela Smoak, counsel for the State, on this 23rd day of September, 2015.

# ~~~ James P. Finstrom
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 875

To declare as citizens of the United States certain women who lost citizenship

solely by reason of marriage to an alien prior to September 22, 1922.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. WALSH, Mrs. MORELLA, and Mr. GUTIERREZ)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To declare as citizens of the United States certain women

who lost citizenship solely by reason of marriage to an

alien prior to September 22, 1922.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoration of Wom5 en’s Citizenship Act’’.
2

•HR 875 IH

1 SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN

2 WOMEN WHO LOST CITIZENSHIP SOLELY BY

3 REASON OF MARRIAGE TO AN ALIEN PRIOR

4 TO SEPTEMBER 22, 1922.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any provision of

6 title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

7 1401 et seq.), any woman who was a citizen of the United

8 States, lost such citizenship solely because the woman

9 married an alien prior to September 22, 1922, and died

10 before December 24, 1952, is hereby declared to be a cit11 izen of the United States as of the date of the enactment

12 of this Act.

13 (b) NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT.—This Act may not

14 be construed to affect—

15 (1) the citizenship of any person other than a

16 woman described in subsection (a); or

17 (2) the citizenship before the date of the enact18 ment of this Act of a woman described in subsection

19 (a).

Æ
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 10, 1995 (125), Para 125.3 After Recess--2:00 P.M.]
[Page 1496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.125.3  after recess--2:00 p.m.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, called the House to order.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, October 30, 1995 (136), Para 136.7 National Children's Island]
[Page 1799]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.136.7  national children's island

  Mr. HANSEN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1508) to 
require the transfer of title to the District of Columbia of certain 
real property in Anacostia Park to facilitate the construction of 
National Children's Island, a cultural, educational, and family-oriented 
park; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, recognized Mr. HANSEN and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill, as amended, was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the 
table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```