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

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 2, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), American Type Culture Collection (“ATCC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: American Type Culture Collection, Manassas, VA. The nature and scope of ATCC's standards development activities are: ATCC will develop consensus standards for biomaterials and related processes including their development, identification, authentication, production, storage, distribution and transfer. Biomaterials include, but are not limited to, bacteria, fungi, yeasts, cell lines, toxins, protozoa, viruses and molecular products such as DNA.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-4438 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
May 23, 2009 

To: Sen. Johnny Isakson 

RE: Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity & Addiction 

 Equity Act of 2008 & 

 Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

 Page19157, II B Areas 1 and 4 

I am a licensed counselor and certified biofeedback therapist who provides counseling 

and biofeedback services to those with headaches, anxiety, chronic pain syndrome and 

other conditions. Biofeedback & neurofeedback have been proven to help headaches, 

anxiety, ADHD and many other disorders, yet Georgia Medicaid and most insurers 

continue to deny coverage. This is a limitation of an effective and valid treatment for a 

mental health problem. 

Based on legal reviews of the parity statute, parity regulations should require employers 

and insurance plans to pay for the same range and scope of services for Behavioral 

Treatments as they do for Medical and Surgical benefits. Today plans are more 

restrictive in how they review evidence based Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

treatments when compared to Medical Surgical treatments. This violates both the intent 

and the letter of the parity statute, and my colleagues and I hope that the regulations will 

clarify that this cannot continue. 

Thank you for helping Georgians to access these much needed health care services. 

Sincerely, 

Denise Olive, LLC, MS, LPC, BCIAC 

Dolive76@bellsouth.net
From: no name [mailto:saacdwgi4@optonline.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:05 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: shut out from helping a adult child with bipolar by doctors

how can a family support a patient with bipolar when the doctors shut them out I understand in 

therapy the doctor and patient have a special confidential bond that must develop yet in crisis the 

family is ignored. No one wants to get to the point where a doctor utters the words,"I sorry we did 

the best we could"

 

And so much for the HIPPA law we want to be there for our loved on before its too late and a 

tradgedy occurs.After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars our patient is still at the point of 

no return somedays are good some very bad even though he is compliant with medication and all 

the trial and errors and therapy given by a well know psychiatrist. 

 

The only information we seek is progress reports and how to cope. Unfortunately other than one 

courtesy call to explain the patient was very ill the data to date has come from reading and 

contacting 

nimh.
CHRISTOPHER MARTIN
, Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3817

Opinion filed November 14, 2014.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Christopher Martin, pro se , Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.
The petition see king a belated appeal of the Order Denying “Second Amended
Motion for Post Conviction Relief” rendered on June 9, 2014, in Gadsden County

Circuit Court case number 2008

- CF

- A0407 is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a
copy of this opinion shall be furnish ed to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment
as a notice of appeal.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ.
, CONCUR.
Exhibit 11.
 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
 In thousands, except per share amounts
                                             Nine months         Three months
 For the periods ended September 30         1996       1995     1996      1995

 Primary earnings per common share:
  Average common shares outstanding ....    11,305    11,233     11,314   11,259
  Common stock equivalents .............       117       100        148      126
                                            -------   -------   -------   ------
    Average shares and share equivalents    11,422    11,333     11,462   11,385

Net income .............................   $ 1,567   $12,458     $3,014   $4,544

Primary net income per share ...........   $  0.14   $  1.10       $.26     $.40


Fully-diluted earnings per common share:
  Average common shares outstanding ....    11,305    11,233     11,314   11,259
  Common stock equivalents .............       200       157        200      157
                                           -------   -------    -------   ------
    Average shares and share equivalents    11,505    11,390     11,514   11,416

Net income .............................   $ 1,567   $12,458     $3,014   $4,544

Fully-diluted net income per share .....   $  0.14   $  1.09       $.26     $.40
exv10w25



 






Exhibit 10.25




AMENDMENT NO. 7



This Amendment No. 7 (the “Amendment”) to the U.S. Systems Integrator Agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between
Cisco Systems, Inc., (“Cisco”) a California corporation having its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman
Drive, San Jose, CA, 95134, and Internetwork Experts, Inc. (“Integrator”) a Texas corporation having its principal
place of business at 15960 Midway Road, Suite 101, Addison, Texas, 77001 is entered into as of the date last written
below (“the Effective Date”).



WHEREAS, Cisco and Integrator have previously entered into the Agreement dated November 13, 2001, as amended; and



NOW WHEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:





	1).	 	The term of the Agreement is extended until November 12, 2006.
	 
	 	 	If the Agreement shall have expired prior to the Amendment Effective Date, any orders received and Products
purchased between the date of expiration and the Amendment Effective Date shall be in all respects deemed made
under the Agreement as in effect prior to this Agreement.
	 
	2).	 	All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the last date which is
written below.




	 	 	 	 	 
	CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.


	 	INTERNETWORK EXPERTS, INC.

	 	 

	 
	 	 	 	 
	BY: /s/ FRANK A. CALDERONI

 

(Authorized Signature)


	 	BY: /s/ PAUL KLOTZ

 

(Authorized Signature)	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	NAME: FRANK A. CLADERONI

 


TITLE: VP, WW SALES FINANCE

 


DATE: MARCH 2, 2006

 



	 	NAME: PAUL KLOTZ

 


TITLE: VICE PRESIDENT

 


DATE: 2-22-06
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 21, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k41-eedr

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-2648

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: John Bowen

General Comment

Obama, do not control my life! Dont tell me what to do. Stay away from my life and i'm smart 

enough to do on my own! Even retirement plan. YOU cannot control me. Period.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 23, 2019*

Decided October 24, 2019 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 19-1138 

DAVID DIXON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FALEN RICK, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 18 C 7897 

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, 

Chief Judge. 

O R D E R 

 David Dixon did not make child support payments, and Illinois state officials 

seized funds from his bank account to satisfy the debt. Dixon then sued the state 

officials and his bank in federal court. He requested that the court dismiss the child 

support claim against him, asserting that the seizure violated his rights to due process 

and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free from 

involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. Although Dixon invoked 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 19-1138 Page 2 

various federal claims, the district court concluded that, essentially, the complaint 

challenged state-court proceedings to establish and enforce Dixon’s child support 

obligation. As a result, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal district courts from setting aside 

state-court judgments. See Gilbert v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 

2010). 

On appeal, Dixon repeats the same legal theories he advanced in the district 

court but fails to point to any basis for the district court’s jurisdiction over his claims. 

His failure to develop an argument challenging the district court’s jurisdictional 

determination waives his only possible avenue for appellate relief, and we could 

dismiss his brief on that basis. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Griffin v. TeamCare, 909 F.3d 

842, 846 (7th Cir. 2018). In any event, we agree that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—not to 

mention the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, see Ankenbrandt 

v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693–95, 716 (1992)—prevented the district court from reviewing 

the state-court order, see Gilbert, 591 F.3d at 900. 

AFFIRMED
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0990.html[7/21/2015 7:20:03 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-va96

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-0990

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Stay the out of our business. We are sick and tired of you , who, by the way, have ruined our

 economy and couldn't manage your way out of a wet paper bag, trying to micro manage the American citizens

 business, including our 401k savings. If you continue to try and weasel your sticky fingers into our "retirement

 plans", we will 0-out our contributions and put it where you for sure can't us out of it. C'mon, you jerks

 have managed the American economy into the poor house. You have some nerve, thinking that you have

 ANY economic soundness between your ears. It's rediculously presumptive of you, to think we trust any of you

 anymore.
§ 26.1 What are the objectives of this part? This part seeks to achieve several objectives: ( a ) To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts in the Department's highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs;
( b ) To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT-assisted contracts;
( c ) To ensure that the Department's DBE program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable law;
( d ) To ensure that only firms that fully meet this part's eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs;
( e ) To help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs in DOT-assisted contracts;
( f ) To promote the use of DBEs in all types of federally assisted contracts and procurement activities conducted by recipients.
( g ) To assist the development of firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program; and
( h ) To provide appropriate flexibility to recipients of Federal financial assistance in establishing and providing opportunities for DBEs.
[64 FR 5126, Feb. 2, 1999, as amended at 79 FR 59592, Oct. 2, 2014; 89 FR 24963, Apr. 9, 2024]
§ 31.33 Witnesses. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing shall be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
( b ) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony may be admitted in the form of a written statement or deposition. Any such written statement must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of such witness, in a manner which allows sufficient time for other parties to subpoena such witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing and deposition transcripts shall be exchanged as provided in § 31.22(a).
( c ) The ALJ shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to ( 1 ) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth,
( 2 ) avoid needless consumption of time, and
( 3 ) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( d ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts.
( e ) At the discretion of the ALJ, a witness may be cross-examined on matters relevant to the proceeding without regard to the scope of his or her direct examination. To the extent permitted by the ALJ, cross-examination on matters outside the scope of direct examination shall be conducted in the manner of direct examination and may proceed by leading questions only if the witness is a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
( f ) Upon motion of any party, the ALJ shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of— ( 1 ) A party who is an individual;
( 2 ) In the case of a party that is not an individual, an officer or employee of the party ( i ) appearing for the entity pro se or
( ii ) designated by the party's representative; or
( 3 ) An individual whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including an individual employed by the Government engaged in assisting the representative for the Government.
§ 231.13 Passenger-train cars with open-end platforms. ( a ) *Hand brakes* — ( 1 ) *Number.* Each passenger-train car shall be equipped with an efficient hand brake, which shall operate in harmony with the power brake thereon.
( 2 ) *Location.* Each hand brake shall be so located that it can be safely operated while car is in motion.
( b ) *End handholds* — ( 1 ) *Number.* Four.
( 2 ) *Dimensions.* Minimum diameter, five-eighths of an inch, wrought iron or steel. Minimum clear length, 16 inches. Minimum clearance, 2, preferably 21 ⁄ 2 inches. Handholds shall be flush with or project not more than 1 inch beyond surface of end sill.
( 3 ) *Location.* Horizontal, one near each side of each end on face of platform end sill, projecting downward. Clearance of outer end of handhold shall be not more than 16 inches from end of end sill.
( 4 ) *Manner of application.* End-handholds shall be securely fastened with bolts or rivets.
( c ) *End-platform handholds* — ( 1 ) *Number.* Four. (Cars equipped with safety gates do not require end-platform handholds.)
( 2 ) *Dimensions.* Minimum clearance, 2, preferably 21 ⁄ 2 inches, metal.
( 3 ) *Location.* Horizontal from or near door post to a point not more than 12 inches from corner of car, then approximately vertical to a point not more than 6 inches from top of platform. Horizontal portion shall be not less than 24 inches in length nor more than 40 inches above platform.
( 4 ) *Manner of application.* End-platform handholds shall be securely fastened with bolts, rivets, or screws.
( d ) *Uncoupling levers.* ( 1 ) Uncoupling attachments shall be applied so they can be operated by a person standing on the ground.
( 2 ) Minimum length of ground uncoupling attachment, 42 inches, measured from center of end of car to handle of attachment.
( 3 ) On passenger-train cars used in freight or mixed-train service the uncoupling attachments shall be so applied that the coupler can be operated from left side of car.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:10 PM 

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, 

Jane Bourgoin 

2617 South Iris Court 

Lakewood, CO 80227
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                      TRUSTEE AND OFFICER POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                   (FORM 10-K)
                           CLEVETRUST REALTY INVESTORS

    KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That each person whose name is signed below
has made, constituted and appointed, and by this instrument does make,
constitute and appoint John C. Kikol, Michael R. Thoms and Raymond C. Novinc and
each of them his true and lawful attorney, with full power of substitution and
resubstitution to affix for him and in his name, place and stead, as
attorney-in-fact, his signature as a trustee or officer, or both, of CleveTrust
Realty Investors, a Massachusetts business trust (the "Company"), to the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 1996,
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to any and all amendments
and exhibits to that Form 10-K, and to any and all applications and other
documents pertaining thereto, giving and granting to each such attorney-in-fact
full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing whatsoever
necessary to be done in the premises, as fully as they might or could do if
personally present, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of such
attorneys-in-fact or any such substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Power of Attorney has been signed at Westlake, Ohio
as of the date indicated.


/s/        Howard Amster                              October 21, 1996
--------------------------------------------       ---------------------------
           Howard Amster, Trustee                        Date

/s/        Robert H. Kanner                           October 21, 1996
--------------------------------------------       ---------------------------
           Robert H. Kanner, Trustee                     Date

/s/        John C. Kikol                              October 21, 1996
--------------------------------------------       ---------------------------
           John C. Kikol, Trustee                        Date

/s/        Leighton A. Rosenthal                      October 21, 1996
--------------------------------------------       ---------------------------
           Leighton A. Rosenthal, Trustee                Date

/s/        John D. Weil                               October 21, 1996
--------------------------------------------       ---------------------------
           John D. Weil, Trustee                         Date
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2013-0668; Dir ID 2013-NM-017-AD
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135517 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135517 COA: 272823 Wayne CC: 02-011051-01 ANTHONY JUNIOR JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
From: ennaid@earthlink.net [mailto:ennaid@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

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

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

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

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

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

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

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Dianne Kennedy 

15 Temple Street 

Reading, MA 01867