alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0607.html[7/21/2015 7:05:00 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-gofd

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-0607

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Barry Barkley

Address:

1401 Douglas Fir Drive

Lebanon, PA, 17042

Email: bbarkley@mlea.com

Phone: 856-285-4622

General Comment

A government bureaucrat should not have any control over my retirement. DOL needs to re-read the 10th

 Amendment.

Im smart enough to plan for my own retirement!
[Crim. No. 443.

First Appellate District.

April 23, 1913.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DOMINGO MARTINI, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Prior Conviction—Credibility of Witness.—Where a defendant, though admitting the charge of prior conviction upon arraignment, becomes a witness in his own behalf, he may be asked if he has ever been convicted of a felony. Such conviction may be proved as affecting his credibility as a witness.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. E. Barber, Judge presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Oscar Hudson, for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

HALL, J.

Appellant was charged with grand larceny, with two prior convictions—one of burglary of the second degree, and one of attempt to commit burglary of the second degree. Upon arraignment he pleaded “Not guilty” to the charge of grand larceny, but admitted the charges of prior convictions to be true. He was convicted of grand larceny.

The only point urged for a reversal is that the court erred in permitting the district attorney, upon cross-examination of defendant (who was a witness in his own behalf), to ask defendant as to having suffered prior convictions for felony.

But where a defendant, though admitting the charge of prior conviction upon arraignment, becomes a witness in his own behalf, he may be asked if he has ever been convicted of a felony. Such conviction may be proved as affecting his ered*744ibility as a witness. *(People*v. *Arnold,*116 Cal. 682, [48 Pac. 803]; *People*v. *Meyer,*75 Cal. 383, [17 Pac. 431]; *People*v. *Chin Mook Sow,*51 Cal. 597.)

The appeal is entirely without merit, and the judgment and order are affirmed.

Kerrigan, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.
§ 299.205 PTC System Certification. ( a ) Prior to operating its PTC system in revenue service, the railroad must first obtain a PTC System Certification from FRA by submitting an acceptable PTCSP and obtaining FRA's approval of its PTCSP.
( b ) Each PTCSP requirement under this subpart shall be supported by information and analysis sufficient to establish that the PTC system meets the requirements of § 236.1005(a) and (c) through (f) of this chapter.
( c ) If the Associate Administrator finds that the PTCSP and its supporting documentation support a finding that the PTC system complies with § 236.1005(a) and (c) through (f) of this chapter and § 299.211, the Associate Administrator shall approve the PTCSP. If the Associate Administrator approves the PTCSP, the railroad shall receive PTC System Certification for its PTC system and shall implement the PTC system according to the PTCSP.
( d ) Issuance of a PTC System Certification is contingent upon FRA's confidence in the implementation and operation of the subject PTC system. This confidence may be based on FRA-monitored field testing or an independent assessment performed in accordance with § 236.1017 of this chapter.
( e ) ( 1 ) As necessary to ensure safety, FRA may attach special conditions to its certification of the railroad's PTC System.
( 2 ) After granting a PTC System Certification, FRA may reconsider the PTC System Certification upon revelation of any of the following factors concerning the contents of the PTCSP: ( i ) Potential error or fraud;
( ii ) Potentially invalidated assumptions determined as a result of in-service experience or one or more unsafe events calling into question the safety analysis supporting the approval.
( 3 ) During FRA's reconsideration in accordance with this paragraph, the PTC system may remain in use if otherwise consistent with the applicable law and regulations, and FRA may impose special conditions for use of the PTC system.
( 4 ) After FRA's reconsideration in accordance with this paragraph, FRA may: ( i ) Dismiss its reconsideration and continue to recognize the existing PTC System Certification;
( ii ) Allow continued operations under such conditions the Associate Administrator deems necessary to ensure safety; or
( iii ) Revoke the PTC System Certification and direct the railroad to cease operations.
( f ) FRA shall be afforded reasonable access to monitor, test, and inspect processes, procedures, facilities, documents, records, design and testing materials, artifacts, training materials and programs, and any other information used in the design, development, manufacture, test, implementation, and operation of the system, as well as interview any personnel.
( g ) Information that has been certified under the auspices of a foreign regulatory entity recognized by the Associate Administrator may, at the Associate Administrator's sole discretion, be accepted as independently verified and validated and used to support the railroad's PTCSP.
( h ) The railroad shall file its PTCSP in FRA's Secure Information Repository at *https://sir.fra.dot.gov ,* consistent with § 299.201(e).
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, October 30, 1995 (136), Para 136.23 Subpoena]
[Page 1802]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.136.23  subpoena

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mrs. SEASTRAND, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,

                                     Ways and Means Committee,

                                                 October 26, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant 
     to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been 
     served with a subpoena issued by the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia.
       After consultation with the General Counsel, I have 
     determined that compliance with the subpoena is not 
     consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Andy Jacobs, Jr.
```
#### Daniel J. Roach, Respondent, *v.*New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Roach*v. *N. Y. C. &*H. *R. R. R. Co.,*136 App. Div. 944, affirmed.

(Argued March 31, 1911;

decided April 25, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 7, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*Alfred L. Becker*for appellant.

*Barton Swift*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ. Dissenting: Cullen, Ch. J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Ginnarutter@sbcglobal.net [mailto:Ginnarutter@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:22 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. 

I'm sure you know that treatments for mental health can be expensive, 

made more difficult if the condition makes one unable to work. 

Sincerely, 

Ginna Rutter 

806 S. Ogden Dr. 

Los Angeles, CA 90036
March 7, 2016 2016

Mr. Benjamin Swygart

Partner

Sky Squirrel Studios LLC

1030 West Packard Avenue

Fort Wayne, IN 46807

Dear Mr. Swygart:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request on behalf of Sky Squirrel Studios LLC filed in Docket 

No. FAA–2015–6498 on November 19, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any 

further as a result of a discrepancy in your petition. The name of the petitioner is inconsistent 

in your petition. For us to consider the request any further, you must clarify the name of the 

petitioner and resubmit a revised petition to your docket. 

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267–2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
# Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, Constitution Week, 2007 

On Constitution Day and Citizenship Day and during Constitution Week, we celebrate the anniversary of our Nation's Constitution and honor the Framers who created the landmark document that continues to guide our Nation.

In the summer of 1787, delegates convened in Philadelphia to create “a more perfect Union” and craft the document that is the foundation of our country. With great diligence, they worked to develop a framework that would balance authority and inherent freedoms, Federal interests and State powers, individual rights and national unity. On September 17th of the same year, the delegates signed the Constitution of the United States.

Today, every American shares in this legacy of liberty, and we are grateful for the courage, conviction, and sacrifice of all those who have helped preserve and uphold the principles of a free society. As we remember the enduring importance of the Constitution, we also recognize our responsibility as citizens to respect and defend the values of our founding and participate in the unfolding story of freedom.

In celebration of the signing of the Constitution and in recognition of the Americans who strive to uphold the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, the Congress, by joint resolution of February 29, 1952 (36 U.S.C. 106, as amended), designated September 17 as “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day,” and by joint resolution of August 2, 1956 (36 U.S.C. 108, as amended), requested that the President proclaim the week beginning September 17 and ending September 23 of each year as “Constitution Week.”

                    NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 17, 2007, as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, and September 17 through September 23, 2007, as Constitution Week. I encourage Federal, State, and local officials, as well as leaders of civic, social, and educational organizations, to conduct ceremonies and programs that celebrate our Constitution and reaffirm our rights and responsibilities as citizens of our great Nation.                          ( print page 48932)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-first day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-4199

Billing code 3195-01-P
Exhibit
10.8

June 15, 2005

AAA Capital Management Inc.
5051
Westheimer – Suite 2100
 Houston, Texas 77056

Attention: Mr. Anthony Annunziato

Re:
Management Agreements Renewal

Dear Mr. Annunziato:

We are
writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the
"Management Agreements"). We are extending
the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2006 and all
other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.

•    SB AAA Master Fund
LLC
•    Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund
L.P.
•    Aurora 2001
•    Salomon Smith Barney AAA
Energy Fund L.P. II
•    Aurora III

Please acknowledge
receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and
returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel McAuliffe at the address
above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any questions I can be
reached at 212-559-5043.

Very truly yours,

CITIGROUP
MANAGED FUTURES LLC

		
	By: 	/s/ Daniel R.
McAuliffe Jr.

Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
Chief Financial
Officer & Director


		
	By: 	/s/ Anthony
Annunziato


Print Name    Anthony Annunziato


DRMcA/sr
#### § 29.526 When do Tribal employment law and contract preference laws govern?

To the extent provided in applicable Federal law, Tribal law governs Indian preference policies in the performance of a compact and funding agreement. When a compact or funding agreement is intended to benefit one Tribe, the Tribal employment or contract preference laws adopted by such Tribe will govern with respect to the administration of the compact and funding agreement.
#### Henry C. Andrews, Receiver, Appellant, v. George H. Moller and others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinions by

Brady, J., and by Davis, P. J.,

dissenting.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0581.html[7/20/2015 9:22:30 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-fy6l

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-0581

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am quite capable of planning responsibly for my retirement. I do not want any government intrusion on my

 401K.
§ 238.9 Responsibility for compliance. ( a ) A railroad subject to this part shall not— ( 1 ) Use, haul, permit to be used or hauled on its line, offer in interchange, or accept in interchange any train or passenger equipment, while in service, ( i ) That has one or more conditions not in compliance with a safety appliance or power brake provision of this part; or
( ii ) That has not been inspected and tested as required by a safety appliance or power brake provision of this part; or
( 2 ) Use, haul, offer in interchange, or accept in interchange any train or passenger equipment, while in service, ( i ) That has one or more conditions not in compliance with a provision of this part, other than the safety appliance and power brake provisions of this part, if the railroad has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation, or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge; or
( ii ) That has not been inspected and tested as required by a provision of this part, other than the safety appliance and power brake provisions of this part, if the railroad has actual knowledge of the facts giving rise to the violation, or a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and exercising reasonable care would have that knowledge; or
( 3 ) Violate any other provision of this part.
( b ) For purposes of this part, passenger equipment will be considered in use prior to departure but after it has received, or should have received, the inspection required under this part for movement and is deemed ready for passenger service.
( c ) Although the duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, any person as defined in § 238.5, including a contractor for a railroad, who performs any function covered by this part must perform that function in accordance with this part.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, October 12, 1995 (127), Para 127.18 Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY 96]
[Page 1513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.127.18  foreign operations appropriations, fy 96

  On motion of Mr. CALLAHAN, by unanimous consent, the bill (H.R. 1868) 
making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for 
other purposes; together with the amendments of the Senate thereto, was 
taken from the Speaker's table.
  When on motion of Mr. CALLAHAN, it was,
  Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendments of the Senate and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
the two Houses thereon.
  Mr. OBEY moved that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 1868, be 
instructed to disagree to any Senate amendment that would require the 
Executive Branch to spend more in fiscal year 1996 than fiscal year 1995 
for assistance to any country or project.
  After debate,
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the motion 
to instruct the managers on the part of the House.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, announced that the yeas had it.
  So the motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was, 
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
  Thereupon, the SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, by unanimous consent, 
announced the appointment of Messrs. Callahan, Porter, Livingston, Wolf, 
Packard, Knollenberg, Forbes, Bunn, Wilson, Yates, Ms. Pelosi, Messrs. 
Torres, and Obey, as managers on the part of the House at said 
conference.
  Ordered, That the Clerk notify the Senate of the foregoing 
appointments.
```
#### § 236.383 Valve locks, valves, and valve magnets.

Valve locks on valves of the non-cut-off type shall be tested at least once every three months, and valves and valve magnets shall be tested at least once every year.

[49 FR 3385, Jan. 26, 1984]
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:

DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. appendix, as amended), the government in the sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended),k and 41 CFR 102-3.55, the Department of Defense gives notice that it will terminate the charter for the U.S. Southern Command Advisory Group on September 30, 2007. 

The committee's charter was filed April 2, 2007; however, changing priorities within the U.S. Southern Command have negated the need for this advisory committee. The Department of Defense did not expend any funds on this committee nor did it approve the appointment of any committee members.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Contact Jim Freeman, DoD Committee                               ( print page 52358)                            Management Office, 703-601-2554, extension 128.                     

L. M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 07-4500  Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### § 236.6 Hand-operated switch equipped with switch circuit controller.

Hand-operated switch equipped with switch circuit controller connected to the point, or with facing-point lock and circuit controller, shall be so maintained that when point is open one-fourth inch or more on facing-point switch and three-eights inch or more on trailing-point switch, track or control circuits will be opened or shunted or both, and if equipped with facing-point lock with circuit controller, switch cannot be locked. On such hand-operated switch, switch circuit controllers, facing-point locks, switch-and-lock movements, and their connections shall be securely fastened in place, and contacts maintained with an opening of not less than one-sixteenth inch when open.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondeut, *v.*Guido Sonnenberg, Appellant.

*People*v. *Sonnenberg,*140 App. Div. 922, affirmed.

(Argued December 13, 1910;

decided January 10, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 21, 1910, which affirmed a judgment of the Onondaga County Court rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of criminally receiving stolen property.

*W. B. Matterson*for appellant.

*George W. Standen*and *George H. Bond*for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.
-----Original Message----- 

From: NANCY@MAM3.COM [mailto:NANCY@MAM3.COM] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:53 AM 

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, 

Nancy Friday 

7519 NE 204th Place 

Kenmore, WA 98028