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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2426 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2426

  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the marking of door 
                                hinges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1995

  Mr. Gephardt (for himself and Mr. Talent) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 with respect to the marking of door 
                                hinges.

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

SECTION 1. MARKING OF DOOR HINGES.

    Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as 
        subsections (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively, and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(f) Marking of Certain Door Hinges.--
            ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no exception may 
        be made under subsection (a)(3) of this section with respect to 
        door hinges and parts thereof (except metal forgings and 
        castings imported for further processing into finished hinges 
        and door hinges designed for motor vehicles), each of which 
        shall be marked on the exposed surface of the hinge when viewed 
        after fixture with the English name of the country of origin by 
        means of die stamping, cast-in-mold lettering, etching, or 
        engraving.
            ``(2) If, because of the nature of the article, it is 
        technically or commercially infeasible to mark it by 1 of the 4 
        methods specified in paragraph (1), the article may be marked 
        by an equally permanent method of marking such as paint 
        stenciling or, in the case of door hinges of less than 3 inches 
        in length, by marking on the smallest unit of packaging 
        utilized.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 apply to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 4:50 PM

Received: July 13, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jy4-yp0e

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-2158

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jon Brick

General Comment

I have personally managed my own retirement accounts under the auspices of a self-directed 

custodial account for almost 10 years now to great effect. I have involving myself in various 

markets, principally stock and options markets as well as currency and futures markets all of 

which are currently allowable by law. While it may seem reasonable to protect people from 

themselves or predatory brokers, I would hope that any rule-making involving retirement 

accounts will not preclude activities in self-directed accounts that are currently allowable. In 

other words, at least for self-directed custodial accounts, please do not restrict activities currently 

allowable. To do so would have significant deleterious effect on my ability to attain goals I have 

established for a comfortable retirement.
<!tnngrenn uf t4e Uniteh state.a Nia.s~ington, £}(£ 20515 

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Frances Perkins Building 

200 Constitution A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

Dear Secretary Perez: 

May 6, 2015 

We are writing to respectfully request that the Department of Labor (the "Department") extend 

the comment period for the Department's recently released proposed rule (the "Proposal") to 

amend the definition of "fiduciary" for the purposes of the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Department released the text of the Proposal on April 14, 

2015 and it was published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015 with a 75-day period for 

interested stakeholders to provide comments. We request that the Department give our 

constituents, Congress, and all other stakeholders an extra 45 days to allow for thoughtful and 

constructive feedback so that the Department may put forth the best possible final rule that 

protects investors. 

As you are aware, the Proposal differs greatly from the 2010 proposal and will have a large 

impact on retirement investors and the financial services industry. The Proposal includes detailed 

regulatory language, a brand new ''Best Interests Contract" exemption, a lengthy regulatory 

impact analysis, and reVvTites several current prohibited transaction exemptions ("PTEs''). 

Considering the importance, scope, and increased size of this Proposal, it is vital that our 

constituents, Congress, and all other interested parties have the opportunity to fully understand 

all of these changes prior to providing the Department with feedback regarding the Proposal. 

This would ensure that the Department receives critical information regarding the Proposal's 

effects as it shapes a final rule. Because of this, we believe a 75-day comment period docs not 

provide an adequate amount of time for this to occur. 

For the above stated reasons, we respectfully request that the Department provide a 45-day 

extension of the comment period. Granting this extension will provide the American people, 

Congress, and all other interested parties the chance to properly evaluate the Proposal and 

provide complete and thoughtful commentary that will help ensure that the Department issues 

the best possible final rule that protects investors. 

Respectfu!ly, 

\ ~ ~ \1" I :s A -- -- \ .Cif ,~ \)J ;\)I)_ 

Frederica S. Wilson 

Member of Congress 

Richard 

U~iVvR E. Neal 

Member of Congress 

PP;JNTED ON ASCVCL:.O PAPER 
-"----·-·-------(-

Bennie G. Thompson 

Member of Congress 

Terri A Sewell 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. 

Member of Congress 

J Vargas 

l\i ember of Congress 

Danny K. Davis 

Member of Congress 

David Scott 

Member of Congress 

Patrick E. Murphy 

Member of Congress 

Ed Perlmutter 

Member of Congress 
Cedric L. Richmond 

Member of Congress
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-224-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. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10354 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAVID W. ELSER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-240-1-E

-------------------- February 28, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David W. Elser has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Elser has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, Elser's
response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for lea ve to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Elser's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JERMAINE L. WILLIAMSON

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1695

[ February 8, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Robert Meadows

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312016CF001460A.

Jermaine L. Williamson, Madison, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

G ERBER

, L EVINE and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          95,895
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,868
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,975
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    565,821
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,344,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                     21,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,153,860
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,710,176
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             51,595
<LONG-TERM>                                     44,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           86,821
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,652
<OTHER-SE>                                     193,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,153,860
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 40,072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                9,419
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   224
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                49,715
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,318
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,460
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           28,937
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,450
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,153
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      13,153
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.84
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.91
<LOANS-NON>                                     17,218
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,331
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,647
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,570
<RECOVERIES>                                       393
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               21,408
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            21,408
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         21,408
        

</TABLE>
ENTRY ORDER

2019 VT 70

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2019-274

SEPTEMBER TERM, 2019

In re Michelle L. Sherer

(Office of Disciplinary Counsel)

}

}

Original Jurisdiction

} Professional Responsibility Board

}

}

} PRB DOCKET NO. 2020-013

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

¶ 1. On August 9, 2019, the Court received notice that respondent Michelle Lynn 

Sherer, an attorney admitted to practice in Vermont, was disbarred from the practice of law in the 

State of Colorado. The Colorado Supreme Court found that respondent engaged in multiple 

instances of misconduct. As that court explained, respondent received a retainer from one client, 

did almost no substantive work, abandoned the client, and then refused to provide the client with 

a refund or an accounting of her time. Respondent charged another client unreasonable fees while 

failing to act diligently and reasonably communicate with her client. She also made knowing 

misrepresentations to her client and to the opposing party during the representation. Additionally, 

respondent failed to substantively respond to the clients’ allegations in the Colorado disciplinary 

matter. The Colorado Supreme Court found that respondent’s conduct violated Colorado Rules of 

Professional Conduct 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.5(a), 1.16(d), 1.15A, 1.15A(a), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). It 

determined that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

¶ 2. Our rules provide that thirty days after receiving notice that a Vermont licensed 

attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, this Court “shall impose the identical 

discipline unless the Court finds that upon the face of the record from which the discipline is 

predicated it clearly appears, or disciplinary counsel or the lawyer demonstrates,” that such 

discipline would be unwarranted under the grounds set forth in Administrative Order 9, Rule 

20.D(1) through (4). A.O. 9, Rule 20.D. Accordingly, this Court issued an order providing 

respondent and disciplinary counsel the opportunity to inform the Court within thirty days of any 

claim that the imposition of identical discipline by this Court would be unwarranted on such 

grounds. Absent such a showing, the imposition of discipline for misconduct in another 

jurisdiction “establish[es] conclusively the misconduct” for the purpose of imposing the identical 

discipline in this State. A.O. 9, Rule 20.E. Neither respondent nor disciplinary counsel filed a

response. 
2

¶ 3. Accordingly, finding no basis in the record to conclude that the imposition of 

identical discipline in this State would be unwarranted, an order of disbarment is hereby entered. 

Respondent Michelle L. Sherer is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Vermont. 

Respondent shall comply with the requirements of Administrative Order 9, Rule 23.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

 Publish

Beth Robinson, Associate Justice

 Do Not Publish

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice
#### § 236.748 [Reserved]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0653.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-rlnx

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-0653

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Art Perez

General Comment

leave my 401k alone, I can take care of it myself.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/5/15 10:42 AM

Received: June 25, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jml-43k8

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-0339

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Richard Murphy

Address: 

3969 Griffin Rd.

Syracuse, NY, 13215

Email: rcm4ideas@aol.com

Phone: 315-492-4071

General Comment

Sirs:

I hold long standing memberships in NAIFA (45 yrs.- National Association of Financial 

Advisors), SFSP (24 yrs.-The Society Of Financial Service Professionals) and MDRT (32 

yrs.-The Million Dollar Round Table).

Each of these associations have very well-defined ethics standards. For as long as I have been in 

business, I have treated my client's financial problems and solutions as if I was treating myself 

and my family. In my formative years, the above mentioned 

codes of ethics served as a constant reminder that we are in a "serve first" business. Thus, a lifelong commitment to the people we serve. 

It is very discouraging to consider the position that our federal government views all in 

financial services as people who cannot be trusted to keep the public trust without imposing 

statutory conflict of interest rules upon us. What is wrong with following and adhering to our 

professional associations' ethical codes of conduct as one's operating standards?

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b565d6&format=xml&showo... 7/5/2015
My financial advising practice has evolved into a pre-retirement planning specialty with a 

emphasis on Social Security optimization. No two cases are alike. We review the entire picture 

including current qualified retirement plans prior to making any financial product 

recommendations. To become a Fiduciary under the proposed regulations will dictate that I will 

no longer be able to serve many middle class

and rank & file employees for the simple reason of affordability of our planning services. I will 

be limited to serving those who can afford to write a 

check covering $200 per hour x 6-15 hrs. of work.

Moving advisors to fees only will give the U.S. the same results that the UK and Australia 

experienced. It will devastate financial services and product manufacturers. Government overregulation of financial services will accelerate the rate of retirement unpreparedness for 

America. 

Richard C. Murphy, CLU, LUTCF, AEP 

Syracuse, NY 

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b565d6&format=xml&showo... 7/5/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               9
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          10,043
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,053
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,380
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          57,165
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            57,165
<LOANS>                                        204,231
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (2,899)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,105
<DEPOSITS>                                     251,908
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,617
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,126
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,527
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 292,105
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,741
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  924
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    78
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,743
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,477
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       62
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  37
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,537
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,078
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,078
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.19
<LOANS-NON>                                        709
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,613
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   131
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,453
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               (2,870)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     (78)
<RECOVERIES>                                        45
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              (2,899)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           (2,899)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 38.115 Interior circulation, handrails and stanchions. ( a ) Where provided, handrails or stanchions within the passenger compartment shall be placed to permit sufficient turning and maneuvering space for wheelchairs and other mobility aids to reach a seating location, complying with § 38.125(d) of this part, from an accessible entrance. The diameter or width of the gripping surface of interior handrails and stanchions shall be 11 ⁄ 4 inches to 11 ⁄ 2 inches or shall provide an equivalent gripping surface. Handrails shall be placed to provide a minimum 11 ⁄ 2 inches knuckle clearance from the nearest adjacent surface.
( b ) Where provided, handrails and stanchions shall be sufficient to permit safe boarding, on-board circulation, seating and standing assistance, and alighting by persons with disabilities.
( c ) At entrances equipped with steps, handrails or stanchions shall be provided in the entrance to the car in a configuration which allows passengers to grasp such assists from outside the car while starting to board, and to continue using such assists throughout the boarding process, to the extent permitted by part 231 of this title.