alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1210-AB32-2-1104.html[7/24/2015 5:52:34 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-e7mm

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-1598

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: James Lenahan

General Comment

I do not want any help from the government in planning my retirement. I am perfectly capable of doing it myself.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1041.html[7/22/2015 6:56:07 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-463z

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-1041

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Gregg Polacek

Address:

22431 founders dr

Calabasas, CA,

Email: Gap88@charter.net

Phone: 310-486-4542

General Comment

I can handle and decide my own retirement with my own hard work, and savings.

Thank you
#### § 29.206 May the Department request and obtain an extension of time of the 45-day review period?

The Department may request an extension of time before the expiration of the 45-day review period. The Tribe may either grant or deny the Department's request for an extension. Any grant of extension of time must be in writing and signed by a person authorized by the Tribe to grant the extension before the expiration of the 45-day review period.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2010

- NM

- 166

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0713.html[7/21/2015 10:26:38 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-k606

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-0713

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Don't let the government try and control my retirement planning, and try to control when where and how I

 invest!
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Behavior 
and Social Science of Aging Review Committee, October 11, 2007, 4 p.m. 
to October 12, 2007, 5 p.m., Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro 
Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published 
in the Federal Register on August 28, 2007, 72 FR 49287.
    The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel at the Chevy 
Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 30, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4402 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Avatar  Systems  Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
C. Shreve, Jr.,  President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

                                                  AVATAR SYSTEMS, INC.

Dated:May 13, 2005                                   By:/s/ROBERT C. SHREVE, JR.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                         Robert C. Shreve, Jr.
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and  furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. Res. 172

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 27, 2001.

Whereas on June 17, 2001, 350 firefighters and numerous

police officers responded to a 911 call that sent them to

Long Island General Supply Company in Queens, New

York;

Whereas a fire and an explosion in a two-story building had

turned the 128-year-old, family-owned store into a heap

of broken bricks, twisted metal, and shattered glass;

Whereas all those who responded to the scene served without

reservation and with their personal safety on the line;

Whereas two civilians and dozens of firefighters were injured

by the blaze, including firefighters Joseph Vosilla and

Brendan Manning who were severely injured;

Whereas John J. Downing of Ladder Company 163, an 11-

year veteran of the department and resident of Port Jefferson Station, and a husband and father of two, lost his

life in the fire;

Whereas Brian Fahey of Rescue Company 4, a 14-year veteran of the department and resident of East Rockaway,

and a husband and father of three, lost his life in the

fire; and

Whereas Harry Ford of Rescue Company 4, a 27-year veteran of the department from Long Beach, and a husband
2

•HRES 172 EH

and father of three, lost his life in the fire: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) honors John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and

Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course of duty

as firefighters, and recognizes them for their bravery

and sacrifice;

(2) extends its deepest sympathies to the families of

these three brave heroes; and

(3) pledges its support and to continue to work on

behalf of all of the Nation’s firefighters who risk their

lives every day to ensure the safety of all Americans.

Attest:

Clerk.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DANA RAY REYNOLDS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-50546

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01067-AHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Dana Ray Reynolds appeals from the 18-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for subscribing to a false tax return, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7206(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-50546

Reynolds contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

properly consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and instead imposed

a sentence based on the court’s displeasure with how the United States Attorney’s

office handled tax cases, assumed the nature of the offense was more serious, and

punished him for conduct other than what he pled guilty to.

The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing

factors, in conjunction with Reynold’s mitigating arguments, but found the

circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence below the one imposed. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Reynold’s sentence was based on the

admissions made pursuant to his plea agreement, the seriousness of the offense, the

need to protect the public, and the need to provide adequate deterrence.

The two-month above-Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable in

light of the totality of the circumstances and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatar Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Shreve,
      President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




AVATAR
                SYSTEMS, INC.**Dated:
                August 31, 2007**
            By:
            /s/ Robert
              C.
              ShreveRobert
                C. Shreve
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Chief
                Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 99 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 99

To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects 
    on the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Hayworth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit discrimination in contracting on federally funded projects 
    on the basis of certain labor policies of potential contractors.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Open Competition and Fairness Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LABOR RELATIONS 
              POLICIES OF OFFERORS ON FEDERALLY FUNDED CONTRACTS.

    Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this Act, no person may be discriminated against 
when bidding on a prime contract, funded in whole or in part with funds 
provided by the Federal Government, if such discrimination is based in 
whole or in part on a requirement that such person enter into or adhere 
to a collective bargaining agreement or any similar agreement as a 
condition of performing work under the contract.''.

SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall not be construed--
            (1) to apply to subcontractors; or
            (2)(A) to prohibit a contractor from voluntarily entering 
        into a lawful agreement with a labor organization; or
            (B) to discourage contractors who have entered into such an 
        agreement from bidding on Federal or federally assisted 
        contracts.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

    The amendment made by section 2 shall apply to contracts made 
directly with any agency of the Federal 
Government and to contracts made with any entity that is managing or 
operating a facility owned or controlled by the Federal Government on 
behalf of the Federal Government.
                                 <all>
```
## Flatwater Studios Materials Release Form

Flatwater Studios respectfully requests permission to use:

______________________________________________________ _______________________________, which will become part of the television broadcast and/or video program entitled,

______________________________________________________ _______________________________, produced by Flatwater Studios. This program will be recorded on video tape for later broadc ast, as w ell as distributed on video. Full credit would be given to:

_______________________________________________________________________________ ______, at the close of the show

in which this video is used. We sincerely hope that you will grant us the perm ission requested, and w ill indicate such by signing and returning this form. Your prompt and courteous consideration of this request is very much appreciated. PERMISSION GRANTED THIS DATE: ___________________________ NAME OF FIRM OR ORGANIZATION: __________________________________________________ Authorized By: ________________________________ Position: _____________________________________ Address: _____________________________________

_____________________________________________ Phone Number: ________________________________
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 187

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 11, 2001

Mr. WALDEN submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following Member be, and is here2 by, elected to the following standing committee of the

3 House of Representatives:

4 STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: Mr. Hulshof.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Champion Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Marshall T. Reynolds, Todd R. Fry and Toney K. Adkins or, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Operating Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:
 
 ·
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 ·
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 By:  /s/Marshall T. Reynolds
 Marshall T. Reynolds
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 By:  /s/ Todd R. Fry
 Todd R. Fry
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 By:  /s/ Toney K. Adkins
 Toney K. Adkins
 President and Chief Operating Officer
 
 A signed copy of this written statement required by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
 
 Date: January 17, 2011
-----Original Message----- 

From: dave.macdonald@sbcglobal.net 

[mailto:dave.macdonald@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:48 AM 

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, 

David MacDonald 

266 Grandview terrace, hartford, ct 06114 Hartford, CT 06114
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**100 CA 13-00559**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JOHN REILLY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CITY OF ROME, ROME POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND JAMES MASUCCI, COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

FELT EVANS, LLP, CLINTON (JAY G. WILLIAMS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

COHEN & COHEN LLP, UTICA (RICHARD A. COHEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Norman I. Siegel, J.), entered June 13, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The order granted respondents’ motion to vacate a default judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, petitioner appeals from an order granting respondents’ motion to vacate a default judgment. We note at the outset that, although no appeal as of right lies from an intermediate order in a CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see CPLR 5701 [b] [1]), we treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal from the order and grant the application ( see Matter of Conde v Aiello, 204 AD2d 1029, 1029). It is well settled that the decision whether to vacate a default judgment is a matter within Supreme Court’s discretion ( see Alliance Prop. Mgt. & Dev. v Andrews Ave. Equities , 70 NY2d 831, 832-833). Here, given that respondents proffered a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely answer to the petition and demonstrated a meritorious defense ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Puchner v Nastke , 91 AD3d 1261, 1261-1262), and considering the “strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits” ( Moore v Day , 55 AD3d 803, 804; see Puchner
, 91 AD3d at 1262), we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in granting respondents’ motion ( see Cavagnaro v Frontier Cent. Sch. Dist ., 17 AD3d 1099, 1099). We note that, prior to the default, respondents engaged in settlement discussions with petitioner and filed a motion to dismiss the petition, thus evidencing a “good faith intent to defend” the proceeding on the merits ( Coven v Trust Co. of**-2- 100 CA 13-00559** 

N.J. , 225 AD2d 576, 576), and we further note that petitioner was not prejudiced by the slight delay in answering the petition ( see Accetta v Simmons , 108 AD3d 1096, 1097).

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         262,522
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,816,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                   30,000
<INVENTORY>                                    6,322,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,299,562
<PP&E>                                         18,334,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,422,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,406,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,578,277
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       54,045
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,261,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,406,071
<SALES>                                        8,207,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,207,982
<CGS>                                          6,608,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,608,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,201,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             473,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                72,497
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (26,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            46,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   46,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>