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

June, 1895.

#### Libbey & *a. v.*Davis.

Land held under a bond for a deed, and upon which the petitioner does not actually dwell, may be subject to a homestead right.

Petition, for the set-off of a homestead. Facts found by the court. December 1, 1891, the plaintiffs, two brothers, bought for $400 the Eaton farm, containing one hundred acres and adjoining their mother’s homestead, taking a bond for a deed upon the payment of that sum within three years with annual interest. They have ever since occupied and carried it on. On it they have cut firewood, pastured their cattle, raised potatoes and oats, and have cut the grass and stored the hay in their bam. They have not lived in the dwelling on the premises, but for convenience have resided with their mother, but upon what terms does not appear. Upon her place they have used the firewood and fed out the hay to their cattle. On or before November 7, 1894, they paid to Eaton on the bond $255.27, and on that day he conveyed to them the farm. For five years they have held, bonds for the conveyance to them of other adjacent lands on the payment of $375, upon which they have paid $100. They have occupied these lands, depasturing them and talcing wood therefrom since they have held the bonds. March 3, 1894, the defendant caused the Eaton farm to be attached on her writ against the plaintiffs. September 26, 1894, Eaton, upon her demand, rendered an account of the amount due him on the bond, which amount she paid to him before November 7,1894. She obtained *356judgment and execution against the plaintiffs, and November 1, 1894, commenced a levy on the farm. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a homestead, and the defendant excepted.

*Albert 8. Wait,*for the plaintiffs.

*George 11. Brown,*for the defendant.

Carpenter, J.

“ Every person is entitled to five hundred dollars worth of his homestead, or of his interest therein, as a homestead right.” P. S., *c.*138, *s.*1. A right to receive a conveyance by virtue of a contract is an interest in land upon which creditors may levy, and which.may be subject to a homestead right. P. S., *c.*220, *s.*8. The defendant’s payment to Eaton of the amount due on the bond (P. S., *c.*220, *s.*8) is immaterial. It could not deprive the plaintiffs of, or affect their right to, a homestead. To entitle one to a homestead right it is not essential that he actually dwell on the land in which it is claimed. Upon the evidence, it was competent for the court to find that the Eaton farm was actually and conveniently used by the plaintiffs in connection with the house where they lived, and was necessary ,to the convenient enjoyment of the house by them as a home. *Buxton*v. *Dearborn,*46 N. H. 43, 44, 45; *Cole*v. *Bank,*59 N. H. 53, 321; *Nichols*v. *Nichols,*62 N. H. 621; *Rogers*v. *Bank,*63 N. H. 428.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
§ 245.205 List of certified dispatchers and recordkeeping. ( a ) After a railroad's certification program has received its initial approval from FRA, pursuant to § 245.103(f)(1), the railroad must maintain a list of each person who is currently certified as a dispatcher by the railroad. The list must include the date of the railroad's certification decision and the date the person's certification expires.
( b ) The list shall: ( 1 ) Be updated at least annually;
( 2 ) Be made available, upon request, to FRA representatives in a timely manner; and
( 3 ) Be available either: ( i ) In electronic format pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section; or
( ii ) At the divisional or regional headquarters of the railroad.
( c ) If a railroad elects to maintain its list in an electronic format, it must: ( 1 ) Maintain an information technology security program adequate to ensure the integrity of the electronic data storage system, including the prevention of unauthorized access to the program logic or the list;
( 2 ) Have its program and data storage system protected by a security system that utilizes an employee identification number and password, or a comparable method, to establish appropriate levels of program access meeting all of the following standards: ( i ) No two individuals have the same electronic identity; and
( ii ) An entry on the list cannot be deleted or altered by any individual after the entry is certified by the employee who created the entry;
( 3 ) Have any amendment to the list either: ( i ) Electronically stored apart from the entry on the list that it amends; or
( ii ) Electronically attached to the entry on the list as information without changing the original entry;
( 4 ) Ensure that each amendment to the list uniquely identifies the person making the amendment; and
( 5 ) Ensure that the system employed for data storage permits reasonable access and retrieval of the information which can be easily produced in an electronic or printed format that can be: ( i ) Provided to FRA representatives in a timely manner; and
( ii ) Authenticated by a designated representative of the railroad as a true and accurate copy of the railroad's records if requested to do so by an FRA representative.
( d ) It shall be unlawful for any railroad to knowingly or any individual to willfully: ( 1 ) Make, cause to be made, or participate in the making of a false entry on the list required by this section; or
( 2 ) Otherwise falsify such list through material misstatement, omission, or mutilation.
§ 379.5 Protection and storage of records. ( a ) The entity shall protect records subject to this part from destruction, deterioration, unauthorized access, modification and/or data corruption.
( b ) The entity shall notify the Secretary if prescribed records are substantially destroyed, damaged, accessed and modified without authorization, or otherwise corrupted.
[83 FR 16225, Apr. 16, 2018]
§ 209.305 Notice of proposed disqualification. ( a ) FRA, through the Chief Counsel, begins a disqualification proceeding by serving a notice of proposed disqualification on the respondent charging him or her with having violated one or more rules, regulations, orders, or standards promulgated by FRA, which render the respondent unfit to perform safety-sensitive functions described in § 209.303.
( b ) The notice of proposed disqualification issued under this section shall contain: ( 1 ) A statement of the rule(s), regulation(s), order(s), or standard(s) that the respondent is alleged to have violated;
( 2 ) A statement of the factual allegations that form the basis of the initial determination that the respondent is not fit to perform safety-sensitive functions;
( 3 ) A statement of the effective date, duration, and other conditions, if any, of the disqualification order;
( 4 ) A statement of the respondent's right to answer the charges in writing and furnish affidavits and any other documentary evidence in support of the answer;
( 5 ) A statement of the respondent's right to make an informal response to the Chief Counsel;
( 6 ) A statement of the respondent's right to request a hearing and the procedures for requesting a hearing;
( 7 ) A statement of the respondent's right to counsel or other designated representative; and
( 8 ) Notice of the consequences of the respondent's failure to take any of the actions described in § 209.307(a).
( c ) The Chief Counsel shall enclose with the notice of proposed disqualification a copy of the material that is relied on in support of the charges. Nothing in this section precludes the Chief Counsel from presenting at a subsequent hearing under § 209.321 any evidence of the charges set forth in the notice that the Chief Counsel acquires after service thereof on the respondent. The Chief Counsel, however, shall serve a copy of any such evidence on the respondent at or before the prehearing conference required under § 209.319. Failure to furnish such evidence to respondent at or before the prehearing conference bars its introduction at the hearing.
( d ) The Chief Counsel shall provide a copy of the notice of proposed disqualification to the railroad that employs the respondent.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 4264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-428]

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

Federal Reserve System

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Monday, February 5, 2007.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 26, 
2007.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07-428 Filed 1-26-07; 3:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
#### Joseph D. Malonee, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Merwin, J.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1345.html[7/23/2015 6:10:00 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvi-bxl2

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-1345

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Fred Thiel

General Comment

Since you can`t take care of your own business of taking care of the country and wasting the tax payers money

 on I think I will take my chances taking care of my own retirement. Stop jacking with the Social Security.

 We pay into that every pay day. when you are forced to pay into something, that is not an entitlement freebie.

 We pay in and we should get the returns when we retire. We already have too much Government involvement in

 our lives. The Government does not have our best interest in mind only their own. Too much Government, Too

 much Union hogwash, Too many handouts to the illegal immigrant population.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, September 8, 1995 (112), Para 112.14 Motion to Instruct Conferees--H.R. 2002]
[Page 1321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.112.14  motion to instruct conferees--h.r. 2002

  Mr. COLEMAN moved that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 2002, be 
instructed to provide funding for the Federal Aid Highways Program at a 
level which is as close as possible to the level in the House-passed 
bill.
  After debate,
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the motion 
to instruct the managers on the part of the House.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, announced that the 
yeas had it.
  So the motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was, 
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6244

LEMMIE STUART, a/k/a David Russell Berry,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COUNTY OF SPARTANBURG; LARRY POWERS, Director

of Spartanburg County Detention Facility;

OFFICER VALASCO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-99-169-2-23)

Submitted: May 19, 2000 Decided: June 16, 2000

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lemmie Stuart, Appellant Pro Se. Ginger Dee Goforth, HOLCOMBE,

BOMAR, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lemmie Dale Stuart appeals the district court’s orders: (1)

dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) motion for

failure to prosecute; and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend

judgment. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

A district court may, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), dismiss a

complaint based upon a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court

order. See Simpson v. Welch, 900 F.2d 33, 35-36 (4th Cir. 1990).

Such dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Ballard

v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989). Because Stuart

failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s unambiguous order and

because the magistrate judge expressly warned Stuart of the consequences of failing to comply with his order, we find that the

district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stuart’s

action for failure to prosecute. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
From: sunshinej@mediacombb.net [mailto:sunshinej@mediacombb.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:31 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, 

Tangela Walker 

1503 East Park Avenue Apartment I-1 

Valdosta, GA 31602
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0758.html[7/21/2015 11:43:13 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-jj5c

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-0758

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Steve Simon

General Comment

To Whom it may concern,

I, like the vast majority of Americans, am perfectly capable of making my own financial decisions without

 Government interference. I am dead against this new proposed EBSA Rule and ask you to strike it down.

This amounts to more Government interference in the most regulated industry on the planet. Please stay out of

 my personal business.

Thank You
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 23, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 27 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 02 34 -J OF-J FK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUVENTINO CHAVEZ-ROMERO, a.k .a. Ju ve nt in o C ha ve z, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 23 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Ju ve nt in o C ha ve z-Ro m ero ap pe al s h is 57 -m on th sen te nc e aft er p le ad in g

gu il ty to i ll eg al ly reent eri ng th e Uni te d S ta te s af te r ha vi ng be ende po rte d, 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( a) an d (b )(2 ). No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm . The
se nt en ce was a reas on ab le on e. On ap pe al , Cha ve z-Ro m ero arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e -- i m po se d b el ow the gu id el in es ran ge of 6 3 t o 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t -- is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itwas g reat er tha n n eces sary to ach ie ve th e g oa ls of 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). W e d is ag ree. Inad di ti on , “ [i]t i s a c ard in al rul e o f ap pe ll at e rev ie w th ata pa rty m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er tria l p ro ceed in g i nv it edby tha t p arty .” Uni te d St at es v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Thu s, an all eg ederro r can no t s erv e as gro un ds forrev ers al if t he ap pe al in g p arty “ in du ces or i nv it es th e di st ric t co urt i nt o m ak in g [the all eg ed ] erro r.” Id
. Ch av ez-R om ero co nc ed es th atth e d is tri ctco urt as si gn edhi m pro pe rly a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I V. At hi s s en te nc in g h eari ng , ho wev er, h e arg ue d th at , bec au se fou r of

hi s s ev encri m in al hi st ory po in ts were fo r dr iv in g o ffen se s, th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d d ep artdo wnwar d andsen te nc e h im ba se d o n acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I I. He reque st edsp eci fic al ly a sen te nc e wit h t he Cat eg ory II gu id el in e ran ge of 4 6 t o 5 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. He g ota 57 -m on th Cat eg ory II 2se nt en ce. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d C ha ve z-Ro m ero ’s reque stfora

do wnwar d d ep artur e an d s en te nc edhi m withi n t he ran ge he reque st ed , Cha ve zRo m ero is no w pre cl ud edfro m ch al le ng in g t he ve ry

actth athe ask edth e d is tri ct
co urt t o und ert ak e. Furth erm or e, th e se nt en ce i s re as on ab le gi ve n a ll th e ci rcu m st an ces . AFFIR MED.

3
Bonombl. B. 8. Cartar,Page 2 0-49Q5 bythe CamtJJudgeto the RnantyQark,mditthe qplioatioas arm filed dire& with the COUB+~ Clerk auoh filing should be . reasonable **the kfore**  **said** kllotm lm to ba printed.

ATTORUBY QBURRAL OF TRXAS
By 8/ As. H. Bassett

Jan. ll.Bmmtt

Amiatant JSBmp1wo APPFXWBD OCT. 14, 1942 s/'Growr Sailers "'. PI2STASSISTAliTATMRSEYO-

-. APPSljVSDOPISIOlICOBWTl'lZ BY SW2 CHAIByaB
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 222 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 222

  To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from finding 
 that a State medicaid plan is not in compliance with title XIX of the 
Social Security Act solely on the grounds that the plan does not cover 
 abortions for pregnancies resulting from an act of rape or incest if 
      coverage for such abortions is inconsistent with State law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Dickey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from finding 
 that a State medicaid plan is not in compliance with title XIX of the 
Social Security Act solely on the grounds that the plan does not cover 
 abortions for pregnancies resulting from an act of rape or incest if 
      coverage for such abortions is inconsistent with State law.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING FINDING OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID 
              REQUIREMENTS BASED ON FAILURE OF STATE PLAN TO COVER 
              ABORTIONS FOR PREGNANCIES RESULTING FROM RAPE OR INCEST.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of title XIX of the 
Social Security Act (including section 1902(a)(10)(A) of such Act), the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services may not find that a State plan 
for medical assistance under such title fails to meet the requirements 
of such title for any quarter solely on the grounds that the State does 
not provide for coverage of an abortion under the State plan during the 
quarter for a pregnancy resulting from an act of rape or incest if 
coverage for such an abortion is inconsistent with State law.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply to quarters 
beginning on or after October 1, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<CASH>                                   4,397,979
<SECURITIES>                             8,040,195
<RECEIVABLES>                            6,173,296
<ALLOWANCES>                             (83,371)
<INVENTORY>                              3,670,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         22,965,352
<PP&E>                                   14,038,198
<DEPRECIATION>                           (5,682,615)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           32,058,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    3,676,595
<BONDS>                                  0
<COMMON>                                 98,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                               27,836,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             32,058,271
<SALES>                                  31,181,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         31,181,752
<CGS>                                    16,789,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            5,878,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         (460,201)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (366,387)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          9,340,366
<INCOME-TAX>                             3,269,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      6,071,240
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             6,071,240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.60
        

</TABLE>