alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
To: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 

Date: 08/03/15 

Re: Range of uncertainty for AEO nuclear costs 

Staff from EPA requested staff from DOE/EIA to assist in determining an reasonable range of 

uncertainty for capital cost in AEO LCOE estimates that would allow for comparison with 

DOE/NETL LCOE cost projections that carry range of certainty of -15% to +30% on the capital 

costs. 

DOE/EIA staff provided the following information: 

I’ve done some investigating, and am expecting further responses from others. At this 

point, I think it’s fair to say the following: 

- The cost estimates we use are not built-up in such a way that we can provide a 

reliable range of uncertainty 

- For nuclear (among other technologies), there is insufficient market data to get a 

good statistical range of potential cost variation (i.e. only 2 plants under 

construction, neither complete) 

- The sense of the market from our staff nuclear expert is that we could expect to 

see a 30% “upside” variation in cost on plants currently under construction, but 

they’ve probably past the point where we could reasonably expect them to come 

in under estimates. For plants not yet in development, there is still a chance that 

they could come in below our estimate, perhaps as much as 10%. So, in general, 

we’d expect maybe -10% to +30%. 

Again, these are estimates of the market uncertainties, not necessarily tied to the 

specific estimations for capital cost used in our model. Also, it is worth pointing out 

that this is just the capital cost component of the LCOE; other costs such as O&M, 

financing cost, etc. may have different associated uncertainties. However, given that 

nuclear is pretty capital intensive, these would be a pretty substantial contributor to 

overall levelized cost uncertainty.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/5/15 11:06 AM

Received: June 02, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8j74-44yh

Comments Due: July 06, 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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0300

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Ken Brown

Address: 

3830 Crown Point Rd

Suite E

Jacksonville, 32257

Email: kenbrown@jpturner.com

Phone: 9047100212

General Comment

Re: Department of Labor - RIN 1210-AB32

As a Financial Advisor whose business is to help individuals and families reach their retirement 

goals, satisfy their income 

needs, and provide security in the waning years of life, I find the time allotted to review the 

DOL Fiduciary Rule is insufficient. 

I am requesting additional time for review to 120 days to analyze how this rule will impact my 

clients and business practices.

A thorough and thoughtful discussion on the potential impacts of this rule is necessary to do 

what is best for our clients. 

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b16128&format=xml&showo... 6/5/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2157 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2157

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the termination of 
     Servicemen's Group Life Insurance when premiums are not paid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 1995

Mr. Stump (for himself and Mr. Montgomery) (both by request) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the termination of 
     Servicemen's Group Life Insurance when premiums are not paid.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE SERVICEMEN'S GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 
              WHEN PREMIUMS ARE NOT PAID.

    (a) Authority.--Section 1969(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(B) If an individual who is required pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
to make a direct remittance of costs to the Secretary concerned fails 
to make the required remittance within 60 days of the date on which 
such remittance is due, such individual's insurance with respect to 
which such remittance is required shall be terminated by the Secretary 
concerned. Such termination shall be made by written notice to the 
individual's official address and shall be effective 60 days after the 
date of such notice. Such termination of insurance may be vacated if, 
before the effective date of termination, the individual remits all 
amounts past due for such insurance and demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the Secretary concerned that the failure to make timely 
remittances was justifiable.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1968(a) is amended by inserting 
``(or discontinued pursuant to section 1969(a)(2)(B) of this title)'' 
in the matter preceding paragraph (1) after ``upon the written request 
of the insured''.
                                 <all>
```
From: wendy@leapierce.com [mailto:wendy@leapierce.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:11 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Wendy White 

1120 Rutledge Ave. 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404
From: Bill English [mailto:goodnewsbook@bex.net] 

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 7:34 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

HELLL NO!
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, September 7, 2007.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

Surveillance matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

David A. Stawick, 202-418-5100.

David A. Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-4093  Filed 8-16-07; 1:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### James McDonald v. Egbert A. Smith and others

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. *Held>*the appeal is irregular because no interlocutory judgment has been entered.
Date Completed: 7/20/2015 

Name: harold mayberry

Street Address: 1 sinclair dr

City: pittsford State: New York Zip Code: 14534

Email: hrm1952@gmail.com

Comments:

Dear Thomas Perez, I'm writing to urge the Department of Labor to reconsider the

proposed fiduciary rule that will significantly hurt the ability of many Americans to

save for retirement. This rule could even completely cut them off from receiving

investment advice. Under this proposed rule, many Americans who most need

access to quality and affordable retirement advice will lose it. The rule will impose

complex regulatory hurdles on financial advisors that would require significant, costly

changes to their business models. As a result, some advisors will reduce services to

individuals and small businesses that provide more than 9 million households

retirement plans. The rule will push financial advisors away from small businesses

and small balance accounts, leaving many Americans with no access to retirement

advice at all. The DOL must realize that its actions will seriously hurt small

businesses' ability to provide retirement savings options to employees and prevent

retail investors from receiving needed, affordable investment advice. The reality of

the fiduciary rule is that it will do more harm than good at a time when Americans

around the country cannot afford to put their retirement savings at risk. Rather than

proceeding down a too-costly regulatory path, the government should consider more

carefully whether there may exist prudent alternatives to achieve the desired

protections and benefits for retirement investors. I strongly oppose the rule, and urge

DOL to reconsider. Sincerely, harold mayberry 1 sinclair dr pittsford, NY 14534
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 12:03 PM

Received: July 14, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jz3-y1ab

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-2241

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jeff Brayton

Address: 

23201 Jefferson Ave

St. Clair Shores, MI, 48080

Email: jeffrey.brayton@raymondjames.com

Phone: 586-498-0788

General Comment

As a financial advisor managing a branch with 7 employees and serving approximately 700 

households I believe this proposed rule will have many unfortunate consequences. As a business 

owner, should this proposed rule take effect, i would immediately suspend or dramatically cut 

back our services to our smaller clients. Unfortunately, these clients would be left to make 

decisions without our help. Many of these are clients that we have worked with for many years. 

These are the clients we counseled through bear markets when they most certainly would have 

sold their high quality investments, and sat in bank accounts earning virtually nothing. They 

would repeatedly buy high and sell low, over and over without our guidance. Their advice in the 

future would come from the hysterical media or even worse some new government agency. i 

would be forced to make a business decision to focus our efforts on our most wealthy clients. I 

would also cut back the staff at my office via termination of employees who depend on this job 

for their families. I don't think any of this has been considered. I aplaud the effort to increase fee 
transparency and to protect the interests of middle class families. This proposed law will do far 

more harm than help to these families in the long run. Jeff Brayton
#### In the Matter of the Application of Henry Edelmuth, as Executor of Adolph Edelmuth, Deceased, Appellant, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus against William A. Prendergast, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Matter of Edelmuth*v. *Prendergast,*144 App. Div. 895, reversed.

(Argued May 30, 1911;

decided June 13, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 13, 1911, which reversed an order of Special Term granting a motion for a temporary writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to pay an award made in street opening proceedings and denied said motion.

*Benjamin Trapnell*and *Joseph A. Flannery*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Joel J. Squier*and *George E. Draper*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The award to the relator did not hear interest until after a demand made on the comptroller for its payment. The appeal from the order of confirmation did not stay relator’s right to make such demand, but the demand made on July 10, 1910, was, in our opinion sufficient. Therefore, the relator is entitled to interest on the award from thirty days after that date until the award be paid.

The order of the Appellate Division should he reversed, and that of Special Term modified, so as to direct that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue directed to the respondent commanding him to pay the award made to the relator, with interest from August 10, 1910, until the date of payment thereof, without costs to either party in any court.

Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, .Chase and Collin, JJ., concur.

Ordered accordingly.
#### § 236.817 Switch, electro-pneumatic.

A switch operated by an electro-pneumatic switch-and-lock movement.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

      ( print page 51445)    

## Agenda 

I. Welcome and Opening Comments: President Albright 

II. Approval of Minutes of Meeting of November 16, 2005 

III. Report from the Executive Secretary 

IV. Report on the 2006/2007 Truman Fellows Program 

V. Approval of Budget for FY 2007 

VI. Old Business 

VII. New Business 

VIII. Adjournment 

Frederick G. Slabach, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-4403 Filed 9-4-07; 4:09 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6820-AD-P
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2418

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 13, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To improve the capability to analyze deoxyribonucleic acid.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DNA Identification

5 Grants Improvement Act of 1995’’.
2

HR 2418 RFS

1 SEC. 2. DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS.

2 Paragraph (22) of section 1001(a) of the Omnibus

3 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is amended to read

4 as follows:

5 ‘‘(22) There are authorized to be appropriated to

6 carry out part X—

7 ‘‘(A) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;

8 ‘‘(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;

9 ‘‘(C) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

10 ‘‘(D) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and

11 ‘‘(E) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.’’.

12 SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON GRANT USE.

13 Section 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and

14 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by adding at

15 the end the following:

16 ‘‘(d) DNA PROFILES PROHIBITED.—In no event

17 shall DNA identification records contained in this index

18 be compiled or analyzed in order to formulate statistical

19 profiles for use in predicting criminal behavior.’’.

20 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

21 Effective on the date of the enactment of the Violent

22 Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, section
3

HR 2418 RFS

1 210302(c)(3) of such Act is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)’’

2 after ‘‘Section 1001’’ and after ‘‘3793’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0527.html[7/20/2015 8:12:19 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-j8mn

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-0527

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

STOP TRYING TO CONTROL MY LIFE AND KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY IRA! We are smart enough to

 manage our own retirement.
§ 232.21 Information Collection. ( a ) The information collection requirements of this part were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*) and are assigned OMB control number 2130-0008.
( b ) The information collection requirements are found in the following sections: §§ 229.27, 231.31, 232.1, 232.3, 232.7, 232.11, 232.15, 232.17, 232.103, 232.105, 232.107, 232.109, 232.111, 232.203, 232.205, 232.207, 232.209, 232.211, 232.213, 232.303, 232.307, 232.309, 232.403, 232.405, 232.407, 232.409, 232.503, 232.505.
Editorial Note on Part 365
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 365 appear at 66 FR 49870, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 365.509T Requirement to notify FMCSA of change in applicant information. ( a ) A motor carrier subject to this subpart must notify the FMCSA of any changes or corrections to the information in parts I, IA or II submitted on the Form OP-1(MX) or the Form BOC-3—Designation of Agents—Motor Carriers, Brokers and Freight Forwarders during the application process or after having been granted provisional operating authority. The carrier must notify the FMCSA in writing within 45 days of the change or correction.
( b ) If a carrier fails to comply with paragraph (a) of this section, the FMCSA may suspend or revoke its operating authority until it meets those requirements
[82 FR 5302, Jan. 17, 2017]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2670

___________ Clifton L. Allen, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 2, 2002 Filed: May 7, 2002

___________ Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written stipulation containing waivers of the right to appeal and to challenge his conviction or sentence in a post-conviction proceeding, Clifton L. Allen pleaded guilty to distributing over 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack), and possessing with intent to distribute over 50 grams of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack), each in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and punishable under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). He was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Upon motion by the government to enforce the appeal waiver, we previously dismissed Allen’s direct appeal.1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Allen then filed the present 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court 1 denied relief, finding that the section 2255 waiver was enforceable, but granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: whether Allen’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the drug’s identification as crack cocaine for sentence-calculation purposes, and whether the trial court violated Allen’s due process rights by not granting an acceptance-of-responsibi lity reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Allen made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to bring a section 2255 action, cf. United States v. Michelsen , 141 F.3d 867, 871 (8th Cir.) (waiver of right to appeal “must be the result of a knowing and voluntary decision”), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 942 (1998), and that the waiver should therefore be enforced. While “waiver of the right to seek section 2255 post-conviction relief does not waive defendant’s right to argue, pursuant to that section, that the decision to enter into the plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel,”
see DeRoo v. United States , 223 F.3d 919, 924 (8th Cir. 2000), Allen has waived his ineffective-assistance argument related to sentencing, seeMason v. United States , 211 F.3d 1065, 1068-69 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding waiver of relief under section 2255 because ineffective-assistance claim related only to counsel’s performance with respect to sentencing and did not go to validity of plea agreement itself), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1175 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Allen’s pending motions.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.