alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J. S71035/14

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA Appellee :

:

v. :

:

: LARRY MARKLE, :

: Appellant : No. 513 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order February 12, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division No(s): CP

- 67

- CR

- 0001337

- 1975

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD, * JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2016

Appellant, Larry Markle, appea ls from the order dismissing as untimely

his third Post Conviction Relief Act 1 (“PCRA”) petition seeking relief, in light

of Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), from a mandatory sentence

of life imprisonment without parole imposed on October 29, 197 9. This

Court previously denied Appellant’s counsel petition to withdraw and directed

him to submit an amended Turner / Finley 2 letter or an advocate’s brief to

address whether the retroactive application of Miller could be considered

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541

- 9546.

2 See Commonwealth v. Turner , 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);

Commonwealth v. Finley , 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) ( en banc ).J. S71035/14

- 2

-

outside the framework of the PCRA. Appellant’s counsel has filed an

advocate’s brief and the Commonwealth has filed a supplemental responsive

brief.

While this appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court

decided Montgomery v. Louisana , ___ S. Ct. ___, 2016 WL 28075 8 (U.S.

Jan. 25, 2016), and held “that when a new substantive rule of constitutional

law controls the outcome of a case, the Constitution requires state collateral

review courts to give retroactive effect to that rule.” Montgomery , 2016

WL 280758 at *7. The Montgomery Court concluded that Miller

“announced a substantive rule of constitutional law” under Teague v. Lane

,

489 U.S. 288 (1989). Id. at *15. Moreover, this Court, in Commonwealth

v. Secreti , ___ A.3d ___, 2016 WL 513341 ( Pa. Super. Feb. 9, 201 6), has

recently held that Miller and Montgomery afford relief to petitioners whose

PCRA petitions seeking relief under Miller were on appeal when

Montgomery was announced.

In light of the foregoing, we reverse the order dismissing Appellant’s

PCRA peti tion and remand for resentencing.

Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/19/2016
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION E N B ANC

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.N.D., a Child

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00584

- CV

Trial court case number: 11030 02J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 18, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellee, Department of Family and Protective Services

It is ordered that the motion for re consideration en banc is d enied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack, Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland , Sharp,

Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

Date: February 20, 2013
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 11:58 AM

Received: July 14, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jz2-g1if

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-2236

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Richard Ktristin

Address: 

3771 S Straits Hwy

PO Box 1176

Indian River, MI, 49749

Email: nitrofuel1957@att.net

Phone: 2312388388

General Comment

Dear Debbie, PLEASE for the sake of the COMMON INVESTOR not to change the rules to 

allow Financial Advisors to help these people understand Investments. I have worked in the 

industry for 30 years. Most of my client base comes from this sector of our population. They

need help in not relying on SOCIAL SECURITY in their so called GOLDEN Years.

Very Sincerely,

Richard S Kristin

Indian River,Mi
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, September 19, 1995 (117), Para 117.5 Communications]
[Page 1374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.117.5  communications

  Executive and other communications, pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIV, 
were referred as follows:

       1447. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting 
     the Department's report entitled the ``Low Emission Boiler 
     System Program''; jointly, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Commerce.
       1448. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation, 
     transmitting notification of the actions the Secretary has 
     taken regarding security measures at Eldorado International 
     Airport, Bogota, Colombia, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44907(d)(3); 
     jointly, to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure and International Relations.
```
§ 37.13 Effective date for certain vehicle specifications. ( a ) The vehicle lift specifications identified in §§ 38.23(b)(6), 38.83(b)(6), 38.95(b)(6), and 38.125(b)(6) of this title apply to solicitations for vehicles under this part after January 25, 1992.
( b ) The vehicle door height requirements for vehicles over 22 feet identified in § 38.25(c) of this title apply to solicitations for vehicles under this part after January 25, 1992.
[56 FR 64215, Dec. 9, 1991]
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.743 Pressure limiting and regulating stations: Capacity of relief devices. ( a ) Pressure relief devices at pressure limiting stations and pressure regulating stations must have sufficient capacity to protect the facilities to which they are connected. Except as provided in § 192.739(b), the capacity must be consistent with the pressure limits of § 192.201(a). This capacity must be determined at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year, by testing the devices in place or by review and calculations.
( b ) If review and calculations are used to determine if a device has sufficient capacity, the calculated capacity must be compared with the rated or experimentally determined relieving capacity of the device for the conditions under which it operates. After the initial calculations, subsequent calculations need not be made if the annual review documents that parameters have not changed to cause the rated or experimentally determined relieving capacity to be insufficient.
( c ) If a relief device is of insufficient capacity, a new or additional device must be installed to provide the capacity required by paragraph (a) of this section.
[Amdt. 192-93, 68 FR 53901, Sept. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-96, 69 FR 27863, May 17, 2004]
§ 388.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part: ( a ) *Administrator* means the Maritime Administrator.
( b ) *Coastwise Trade Laws* include: ( 1 ) The Coastwise Endorsement Provision of the Vessel Documentation Laws, (46 U.S.C. 12106);
( 2 ) The Passenger Services Act, section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289); and
( 3 ) The Jones Act, section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883).
( c ) *Eligible Vessel* means a vessel that—is either a small passenger vessel or an uninspected passenger vessel that— ( 1 ) Was not built in the United States and is at least 3 years of age; or
( 2 ) If rebuilt, was rebuilt outside the United States at least 3 years before the certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement if granted, would become effective.
( d ) *MARAD* means the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
( e ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Transportation.
( f ) The terms *small passenger vessel, uninspected passenger vessel* and *passenger for hire* have the meaning given such terms by 46 U.S.C. 2101.
( g ) *Fraud* means the intentional misrepresentation of a material fact or facts.
[69 FR 51772, Aug. 23, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 28206, May 20, 2010]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0654.html[7/21/2015 8:09:53 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-cm4f

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-0654

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: William Williams

General Comment

I don't want the feds involved in my retirement. The ruling class is already too involved in my personal life. NO

 MORE.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0674.html[7/21/2015 8:27:05 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-6akb

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-0674

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Shelly Day

Address:

Coarsegold, CA,

General Comment

Keep your hands off my money! I earned it. I saved it. It is MINE! and I will spend it how I see fit!
Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Request for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 

Comment On: IRS-2009-0008-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS-2009-0008-0103 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Jessica R. Jarvis 

Address: 

Austin, TX, 

General Comment 

MHPA and MHPAEA may combine to significantly expand access to mental health and 

substance abuse services for participants of ERISA-regulated health plans. Perhaps plan 

participants will find greatly enhanced freedom to receive psychotherapy or alcohol rehabilitation 

treatment, for instance. On the other hand, it is possible that participants and service providers 

will find themselves sifting through extensive rules for approval for such services, including lists 

of conditions that fit the plan’s interpretation of what constitutes a mental illness or substance 

use disorder. The latter scenario highlights the problems in healthcare that persist despite the 

passage of the two parity bills. 

First, as discussed above, most self-insured ERISA health plans maintain the freedom to 

define “mental health condition” and “substance use disorder.” Although some advocates favor 

the use of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as the authority 

on defining such terms, managed care has incentive to disagree. Managed care exists to 

contain costs, so health plans will most likely avoid a liberal interpretation of these terms. 

Furthermore, although MHPAEA requires transparency in the managed care utilization 

management process, the law does not specify how the plan administrator will be held 

accountable. To its credit, MHPAEA does indicate sensitivity to the risk for managed care 

abuse of the power to make medical decisions. It requires a report from the General Accounting 

Office that describes the effects of the MHPAEA on access to mental health and substance 

abuse care, including coverage or exclusion of specific diagnoses. Perhaps this report will spot 

problems and lead to stricter requirements for health plans, but in the interim, what recourse is 

available to the participant whose mental health treatment is not deemed “medically necessary”? 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 29, 2009 

Tracking No. 809bc72c 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009
This question leads back to the problem with ERISA state preemption, including limits on the 

reach of state laws and blockade of direct liability malpractice suits.
#### § 270.203 Retention of system safety program plan.

Each passenger rail operation to which this part applies shall retain at its system headquarters, and at any division headquarters, one copy of the SSP plan required by this part and one copy of each subsequent amendment to that plan. These records shall be made available to representatives of FRA and States participating under part 212 of this chapter for inspection and copying during normal business hours.

[85 FR 12849, Mar. 4, 2020]
-----Original Message----- 

From: bethgal1966@yahoo.com [mailto:bethgal1966@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:14 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, 

Beth Perry 

70 Tintle Ave 

West Milford, NJ 07480
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 22 (Friday, February 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5062-5068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-454]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

FDA 225-05-6001


Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug 
Administration, Duke University and Duke University Health System, Inc.

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA, Duke University (DU) 
and Duke University Health System, Inc. (DUHS). The purpose of the MOU 
is to establish the terms of collaboration between FDA, DU and DUHS to 
support shared interests and will begin with an initiative entitled: 
The FDA, DU and DUMC Elective Program.

DATES: The agreement became effective September 18, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy L. Pluhowski, Center for Devices 
and Radiological Health (HFZ-1), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-827-2890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: January 25, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 5063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.004


[[Page 5064]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.005


[[Page 5065]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.006


[[Page 5066]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.007


[[Page 5067]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.008


[[Page 5068]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN02FE07.009

[FR Doc. 07-454 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C?>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDirectory of research projects: Planetary geology and geophysics programInformation about currently funded scientific research within the Planetary Geology and Geophysics Program is provided. The directory consists of the proposal summary sheet from each proposal funded under the program during Fiscal Year 1992. The sheets provide information about the research project, including title, principal investigator, institution, summary of research objectives, past accomplishments, and proposed new investigations.Document ID19930006449Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHolt, Henry*(Office of Space Science and Applications Washington, DC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1992Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-4428NAS 1.15:4428Accession Number93N15638Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930006449.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
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0499.html[7/20/2015 3:54:50 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-rgd3

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-0499

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Gail Gooding

Address:

P. O. Box 1291

Hayfork, CA, 96041-1291

Email: MissApril68@aol.com

General Comment

As a free American citizen, I stongly object to ANY meddling by government beaurocrats into MY retirement

 funds. You people cannot pay off the country's debts and you waste trillions of our taxpayer dollars each year.

 Your track record for handling money is dismal and I do not need you handling my money. Phooey!
#### § 370.1 Applicability of regulations.

The regulations set forth in this part shall govern the processing of claims for loss, damage, injury, or delay to property transported or accepted for transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, by each motor carrier, water carrier, and freight forwarder (hereinafter called carrier), subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 4:46 PM

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jy4-jecb

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-2155

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Joseph Wagner

Address: 

11900 NE 18th St Apt 561

Vancouver, WA, 98684-5111

Email: joe@josephdwagner.info

Phone: 360-891-8439

General Comment

I must object to the fiduciary standard being broadened to include custodians of self-directed 

IRAs. The fiduciary standard is supposed to protect consumers paying for financial advice. Who 

am I being protected from in the case of a self-directed IRA? I find such an expansion a violation 

of de minimis non curat lex.
§ 1103.27 Candor and fairness in dealing with other litigants. ( a ) The conduct of practitioners before the Board and with other practitioners should be characterized by candor and fairness. The practitioner shall observe scrupulously the principles of fair dealing and just consideration for the rights of others.
( b ) It is not candid or fair for a practitioner knowingly to misstate or misquote the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language or the argument of an opposing practitioner, or the language or effect of a decision or a text book; or, with knowledge of its invalidity to cite as authority a decision which has been overruled or otherwise impaired as a precedent or a statute which has been repealed; or in argument to assert as a fact that which has not been proved, or to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening argument upon which his side then intends to rely.
( c ) It is dishonorable to deal other than candidly with the facts in taking the statements of witnesses, in drawing affidavits and other documents, and in the presentation of cases.
( d ) A practitioner shall not offer evidence which he knows the Board should reject, in order to get the same before the Board by argument for its admissibility, or arguments upon any point not properly calling for determination. He shall not introduce into an argument remarks or statements intended to influence the bystanders.
( e ) A practitioner shall rely on his judgment concerning matters incidental to the trial which may, in some cases, affect the proceeding. For example, a practitioner should not force a matter to trial when there is affliction or bereavement on the part of the opposing practitioner if no harm will come from postponing the proceeding.
( f ) A practitioner shall not ignore known customs or practice of the Board, even when the law permits, without giving timely notice to the opposing practitioner.
( g ) Insofar as is possible, important agreements affecting the rights of the clients should be made in writing. It is, however, dishonorable to avoid performance of an agreement fairly made only because it is not made in writing.
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

February 27, 2014

Mr. David K. Paylor, Director

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 1105

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Mr. Paylor:

On February 18, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. This SIP revision consists of 

a Federally enforceable state operating permit containing terms and conditions for the control of

emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the Mondelēz Global LLC, Inc. 

Richmond Bakery located in Henrico County. This revision pertains to the 1997 8- hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) reasonably available control technology (RACT) 

for sources not subject to control technology guidelines (CTG) for the Richmond Ozone 

maintenance area. The EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically 

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, 

Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2166. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: Tom Ballou, Director 

 Office of Data Analysis and Planning