alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0621.html[7/21/2015 7:17:46 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-983a

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-0621

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Geri Frankenstein

General Comment

Leave my 401(k) alone. I can plan my own retirement....thank you!!
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1518.html[7/23/2015 12:32:35 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-80ex

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-1518

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jon Stuver

Address:

2614 Miars Dr.

Niles, MI, 49120

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone! I surely can do better on my own than you morons would with your

 $20,000,000,000,000 deficit!
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 385.1017 Penalties.

Any motor carrier that the Agency determines to be in violation of this subpart shall be subject to the civil or criminal penalty provisions of 49 U.S.C. 521(b) and applicable regulations.
**Exhibit 31.3**
**CEO CERTIFICATION**
I, W. Douglas Parker, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of America WestAirlines, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; (b) [intentionally omitted] (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.       Date: July 21, 2004   /s/ W. Douglas Parker                  W. Douglas Parker     Chief Executive Officer
§ 179.102-2 Chlorine. ( a ) Each tank car used to transport chlorine must comply with all of the following: ( 1 ) Tanks must be fabricated from carbon steel complying with ASTM Specification A 516 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), Grade 70, or AAR Specification TC 128, Grade A or B.
( 2 ) - ( 3 ) [Reserved]
( b ) [Reserved]
[Amdt. 179-7, 36 FR 14697, Aug. 10, 1971; Amdt. 179-10, 36 FR 21346, Nov. 6, 1971, as amended by Amdt. 179-25, 44 FR 20433, Apr. 5, 1979; Amdt. 179-40, 52 FR 13046, Apr. 20, 1987; Amdt. 179-45, 55 FR 52728, Dec. 21, 1990; Amdt. 179-52, 61 FR 28680, June 5, 1996; 68 FR 75760, Dec. 31, 2003]
§ 383.93 Endorsements. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) In addition to passing the knowledge and skills tests described in subpart G of this part, all persons who operate or expect to operate the type(s) of motor vehicles described in paragraph (b) of this section must pass specialized tests to obtain each endorsement. The State shall issue CDL endorsements only to drivers who successfully complete the tests.
( 2 ) The only endorsements allowed on a CLP are the following: ( i ) Passenger (P);
( ii ) School bus (S); and
( iii ) Tank vehicle (N).
( 3 ) The State must use the codes listed in § 383.153 when placing endorsements on a CLP or CDL.
( b ) *Endorsement descriptions.* An operator must obtain State-issued endorsements to his/her CDL to operate commercial motor vehicles which are: ( 1 ) Double/triple trailers;
( 2 ) Passenger vehicles;
( 3 ) Tank vehicles;
( 4 ) Used to transport hazardous materials as defined in § 383.5; or
( 5 ) School buses.
( c ) *Endorsement testing requirements.* The following tests are required for the endorsements contained in paragraph (b) of this section: ( 1 ) *Double/Triple Trailers* —a knowledge test;
( 2 ) *Passenger* —a knowledge and a skills test;
( 3 ) *Tank vehicle* —a knowledge test;
( 4 ) *Hazardous Materials* —a knowledge test; and
( 5 ) *School bus* —a knowledge and a skills test.
[53 FR 27651, July 21, 1988, as amended at 67 FR 49760, July 31, 2002; 68 FR 23850, May 5, 2003; 76 FR 26887, May 9, 2011; 84 FR 52034, Oct. 1, 2019]
§ 229.131 Sanders. ( a ) Prior to departure from an initial terminal, each locomotive, except for MU locomotives, shall be equipped with operative sanders that deposit sand on each rail in front of the first power operated wheel set in the direction of movement or shall be handled in accordance with the requirements contained in § 229.9.
( b ) A locomotive being used in road service with sanders that become inoperative after departure from an initial terminal shall be handled in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) A lead locomotive being used in road service that experiences inoperative sanders after departure from an initial terminal may continue in service until the earliest of the following occurrences: ( i ) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
( ii ) Arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a sand delivery system;
( iii ) The next periodic inspection under § 229.23; or
( iv ) Fourteen calendar days from the date the sanders are first discovered to be inoperative; and
( 2 ) A trailing locomotive being used in road service that experiences inoperative sanders after departure from an initial terminal may continue in service until the earliest of the following occurrence: ( i ) Arrival at the next initial terminal;
( ii ) Arrival at a location where it is placed in a facility with a sand delivery system; or
( iii ) The next periodic inspection under § 229.23.
( c ) A locomotive being used in switching service shall be equipped with operative sanders that deposit sand on each rail in front of the first power operated wheel set in the direction of movement. If the sanders become inoperative, the locomotive shall be handled in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) A locomotive being used in switching service at a location not equipped with a sand delivery system may continue in service for seven calendar days from the date the sanders are first discovered inoperative or until its next periodic inspection under § 229.23, which ever occurs first; and
( 2 ) A locomotive being used in switching service at locations equipped with a sand delivery system shall be handled in accordance with the requirements contained in § 229.9.
( d ) A locomotive being handled under the provisions contained in paragraph (b) and (c)(1) of this section shall be tagged in accordance with § 229.9(a).
[72 FR 59223, Oct. 19, 2007]
§ 368.4 Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information. ( a ) You must notify FMCSA of any changes or corrections to the information in Section A of Form MCSA-1—FMCSA Registration/Update (USDOT Number—Operating Authority Application), or the Form BOC-3, Designation of Agents-Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders, during the application process or while you have a Certificate of Registration. You must notify FMCSA in writing within 30 days of the change or correction.
( b ) If you fail to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, the FMCSA may suspend or revoke the Certificate of Registration until you meet those requirements.
[67 FR 12660, Mar. 19, 2002, as amended by 80 FR 63707, Oct. 21, 2015] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 82 FR 5303, Jan. 17, 2017, § 368.4 was suspended, effective Jan. 14, 2017.
From: Matt Karam [mailto:bottoml1@aol.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:24 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Keep the Fixed Annuity and Keep paying the professional that represents them! 

I'm an older financial planner and I have always like "fixed" products in a clients asset classification model 

because the client does not pay any inital or on-going fees, clients do not risk selecting their investments 

as in variable products, and the clients can have a little piece of mind.

The industry has virtually already done away with the $2,500 fixed annuity you would have a child start 

with and add to over time. Now those minimums have increased to $25,000 if you can still offer them. 

Many carriers I know have stopped offering fixed annuites altogether. One carrier in particular, Grange 

insurance in Columbus used to have an excellent annuity we used for special needs clients and thier trust 

money. Grange isurnace no longer offer it!! Our disabled clients need retirement money but they lack the 

capacity to decide on investment decisions.

Thank you,

//mjk

Matt Karam

bottoml1@aol.com
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1074.html[7/22/2015 7:35:03 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-9e45

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-1074

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Keep your hands off of my 401k!!!
Order entered October 31, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00098

- CV
AL M. WILLIAMS , Appellant

V. ECOM/WILLMAX BELLAGIO, L.P. D/B/A LADERA , Appellee On App eal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 17458

O RDER The Court has granted appellant three extensions of time to file an amended brief correcting deficiencies noted in this Court’s July 28, 2022 letter. Before the Court is appellant’s October 28, 2022 motion requesting that we abate the briefing deadline until he is medically cleared after an upcoming surgery. We GRANT the
motion only to the extent that we extend the deadline to December 9, 2022 . We

cau tion appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9 
<CIK> 0000706731 
<NAME> GUARANTY BANCSHARES HOLDING CORPORATION 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995 
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996 
<CASH>                                            2443 
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0 
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2700 
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0 
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5140 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           14916 
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             14920 
<LOANS>                                          37272 
<ALLOWANCE>                                        510 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   65447 
<DEPOSITS>                                       55770 
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0 
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                710 
<LONG-TERM>                                       3102 
<PREFERRED>                                       3588   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<COMMON>                                          1067 
<OTHER-SE>                                        1210 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   65447 
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2578
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  632 
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   223 
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3443 
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1277 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1480 
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             1963 
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0 
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0 
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1837 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    342 
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         207 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       135 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.6 
<LOANS-NON>                                        230 
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    230 
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   505 
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2 
<RECOVERIES>                                         7 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  510 
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               510 
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0 
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0 
         

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7968
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY LEE WESLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00382-HCM-2; 1:06-cv-01191-HCM) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Lee Wesley, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Johnny Lee Wesley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wesley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00217-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.J., S.D.J. AND S.F.J., CHILDREN 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 3 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2012-501,593, Honorable Judy Parker, Presiding 

 

July 10, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

J.K.J., appellant, attempts to appeal an order modifying possession of his three 

children. The order was signed on April 27, 2015. His notice of appeal was filed with 

the district clerk on June 1, 2015. We dismiss for failing to comply with a notice and 

court order requiring a response within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on May 27, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

Though appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 1, 2015, no motion requesting an 

extension of the deadline accompanied it. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

26.3, the Court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the 

deadline expires, the appellant files the notice of appeal along with a motion requesting 
2

an extension that reasonably explains the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.3 & 10.5(b). Although a motion for extension is implied when an appellant tenders a

notice of appeal within 15 days after the notice deadline, it is still necessary for 

appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 617, (Tex. 1997); Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 

1998).

Because appellant filed a notice of appeal within 15 days after the deadline, a 

motion for extension was implied. Yet, we ordered him to explain, in writing and by 

June 26, 2015, why the notice of appeal was filed late. We also informed appellant that 

the failure to comply with the directive would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3. That deadline also lapsed without appellant responding to our directive 

for an explanation. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.3(c) because appellant failed to comply with a notice and court order requiring a 

response within a specified time. Of course, appellant has 15 days to file a motion for 

rehearing wherein he may comply with our earlier directive. 

Per Curiam
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1016.html[7/22/2015 6:38:03 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-ag0a

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-1016

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kenneth Compton

Address:

141 Heritage Lane

Weatherford, TX, 76087

Email: Kdcompton@aol.com

General Comment

To whom it may concern:

A federal government incapable of balancing a budget has no business directing or questioning how I manage

 my IRA's or any other source of retirement funds. Any such action is a breech of your Constitutional limits, and

 equivalent to criminal behavior. No organization knows what is best for me and my family, and my God given

 rights shall not be abridged.

Ken Compton
From: jolielaide@comcast.net [mailto:jolielaide@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:10 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 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, 

heather kaufman 

45 virginia avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94110
§ 29.802 What process must the Department follow before termination of a compact or funding agreement (or portion thereof)? Except as provided in § 29.805, prior to a termination becoming effective, the Department must: ( a ) Notify the Tribe in writing by any method that provides receipt of the findings required under § 29.800;
( b ) Request specific corrective action within a reasonable period, no less than 45 days, to correct the conditions that may result in the Department's termination of a compact or funding agreement (or portion thereof);
( c ) To the extent feasible and if requested, provide technical assistance to assist the Tribe in overcoming the conditions that led to the findings described under paragraph (a) of this section. Technical assistance may take the form of feedback, review, and other assistance requested, as appropriate; and
( d ) Provide an opportunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with Subpart J of this part.