alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 24.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to promulgate rules to implement the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601 *et seq.*) (Uniform Act), in accordance with the following objectives: ( a ) To ensure that owners of real property to be acquired for Federal and federally assisted projects are treated fairly and consistently, to encourage and expedite acquisition by agreements with such owners, to minimize litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, and to promote public confidence in Federal and federally assisted land acquisition programs;
( b ) To ensure that persons displaced as a direct result of Federal or federally assisted projects are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such displaced persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole; and
( c ) To ensure that agencies implement the regulations in this part in a manner that is efficient and cost effective.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0960.html[7/21/2015 6:50:40 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-14mx

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-0960

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Sorry this is not a communist country!
Date Completed: 7/20/2015 

Name: GENE MOORE

Street Address: 15271 Walnut Creek Dr

City: Strongsville State: Ohio Zip Code: 44149

Email: ebmpro17@wideopenwest.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, Eugene Moore 15271 Walnut Creek Dr. Strongsville,

OH 44149
Editorial Note on Part 325
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 325 appear at 66 FR 49869, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 325.53 Site characteristics; stationary test. ( a ) ( 1 ) The motor vehicle to be tested shall be parked on the test site. A microphone target point shall be established on the ground surface of the site on the centerline of the lane in which the motor vehicle is parked at a point that is within 3 feet (.9 m) of the longitudinal position of the vehicle's exhaust system outlet(s). A microphone location point shall be established on the ground surface not less than 31 feet (9.5 m) and not more than 83 feet (25.3 m) from the microphone target point. Within the test site is a triangular measurement area. A plan view diagram of a standard test site, having an open site within a 50-foot (15.2 m) radius of both the microphone target point and the microphone location point, is shown in Figure 2.
( 2 ) Measurements may be made at a test site having smaller or greater dimensions in accordance with the rules in subpart F of this part.
( b ) The test site must be an open site, essentially free of large sound-reflecting objects. However, the following objects may be within the test site, including the triangular measurement area: ( 1 ) Small cylindrical objects such as fire hydrants or telephone or utility poles.
( 2 ) Rural mailboxes.
( 3 ) Traffic railings of any type of construction except solid concrete barriers (see § 325.5(c)(4)).
( 4 ) One or more curbs having a height of 1 foot (.3 m) or less.
( c ) The following objects may be within the test site if they are outside of the triangular measurement area of the site: ( 1 ) Any vertical surface, regardless of size (such as a billboard), having a lower edge more than 15 feet (4.6 m) above the ground.
( 2 ) Any uniformly smooth surface slanting away from the vehicle with a slope that is less than 45 degrees above the horizontal.
( 3 ) Any surface slanting away from the vehicle that is 45 degrees or more and not more than 90 degrees above the horizontal, if all points on the surface are more than 15 feet (4.6 m) above the surface of the ground in the test site.
( d ) The surface of the ground within the measurement area must be relatively flat. (See § 325.5(c)(5)). The site shall be a “hard” site. However, if the site is determined to be “soft,” the correction factor specified in § 325.75(b) of this part shall be applied to the measurement.
[40 FR 42437, Sept. 12, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 10227, Mar. 10, 1976; 54 FR 50385, Dec. 6, 1989]
§ 24.11 Adjustments of limits and payments. ( a ) The Lead Agency may adjust the following valuation limits and maximum relocation benefits payments: ( 1 ) The waiver valuation limits at § 24.102(c)(2)(ii) introductory text and (c)(2)(ii)(C);
( 2 ) The conflict of interest valuation limits at § 24.102(n)(3); and
( 3 ) The maximum amounts of relocation payments provided at §§ 24.301, 24.304, 24.305, 24.401, 24.402, 24.502, and 24.503.
( b ) The head of the Lead Agency will evaluate whether the cost of living, inflation, or other factors indicate that limits, and payments provided in paragraph (a) of this section, should be adjusted to meet the policy objectives of the Uniform Act. The Lead Agency will divide the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) index for the year of the assessment (current year), by the CPI-U index for the year of the previous assessment (base year index/year of last adjustment) to determine the effect of inflation over the assessment period. If adjustments are determined to be necessary, the head of the Lead Agency will publish the new maximum benefit limits eligible for Federal participation in the Federal Register. (*See* appendix A to this part, section 24.11.)
1210-AB32-2-1089.html[7/24/2015 5:34:35 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-q9ab

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-1583

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am smart enough to handle my own retirement. Look what you have done to Social Security.
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.605 New entrant registration driver's license and drug and alcohol testing requirements. ( a ) A non-North America-domiciled motor carrier must use only drivers who possess a valid commercial driver's license—a CDL, Canadian Commercial Driver's License, or Mexican Licencia de Federal de Conductor—to operate its vehicles in the United States.
( b ) A non-North America-domiciled motor carrier must subject each of the drivers described in paragraph (a) of this section to drug and alcohol testing as prescribed under part 382 of this subchapter.
Exhibit 32-1



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code



The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of Exelon Corporation for the year ended December 31,
2005, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Exelon Corporation.



|                           |  |  |  |  |  |                     |  |                                                             
|-------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |  |  | 
|Date:    February 15, 2006 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN W. ROWE
|                           |  |  |  |  |  |                     |  | John W. Rowe Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
Exhibit 32





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



I, Joseph J. Lazzara, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Scientific Technologies Incorporated for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly represents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Scientific
Technologies Incorporated.

|Dated: May 14, 2004 | By:/s/Joseph J. Lazzara_______              
|------------------- | --------------------------------------------
|                    | Name: Joseph J. Lazzara                     
|                    | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer







I, Richard O. Faria, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Scientific Technologies Incorporated for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly represents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Scientific
Technologies Incorporated.

|Dated: May 14, 2004 | By:/s/Richard O. Faria_______                    
|------------------- | -------------------------------------------------
|                    | Name: Richard O. Faria                           
|                    | Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
From: madametrz . [mailto:madametrz@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:51 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

As a licensed financial profession living in Maryland, I work hard every day on behalf of my 

clients to help them reach their retirement objectives. As such, I am concerned that the 

Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed fiduciary standard for retirement accounts will 

unnecessarily raise clients’ costs and limit access to their choice of investments and to 

professional investment guidance. We can all agree that Americans should be doing more to 

save for retirement and that they deserve a retirement system that is open, accessible and 

transparent. Today, people can choose to receive services in a number of ways to help them 

prepare for retirement. In my view, the DOL’s proposal will create a marketplace that is less 

open and accessible. A better approach is for Congress to adopt a best interest standard that 

works for my clients- one that preserves access to investor education and allows them to choose 

how they work with a Financial Advisor in a way that best suits their needs. I support the 

creation of a uniformed best interest standard that governs the conduct of all dealings between 

Financial Advisors and customers, in both retirement and traditional brokerage accounts. In my 

view, the DOL’s proposal will create a marketplace that is less open and accessible. A better 

approach is for Congress to adopt a best interest standard that works for my clients—one that 

preserves access to investor education and allows them to choose how they work with a 

Financial Advisor in a way that best suits their needs.

Respectfully yours,

Tina Zemba
#### § 375.803 How must I present my invoice?

You must present your invoice in accordance with § 375.807.

[69 FR 10577, Mar. 5, 2004, as amended at 87 FR 24448, Apr. 26, 2022]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4335

CALVIN EARL BUNCH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-193)

Submitted: October 31, 2003

Decided: November 14, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney,

Kenneth M. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Calvin Bunch pleaded guilty to six counts of bank robbery, six

counts of armed bank robbery, and six counts of using, carrying, and

brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.

The convictions stem from six bank robberies that occurred in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, between August 1 and September

17, 2001. On appeal, Bunch contends that because bank robbery, 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000), is a lesser included offense of armed bank

robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (2000), the bank robbery convictions

violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be vacated. We agree

and remand so that the district court may vacate the bank robbery

convictions and associated sentences. 

The United States contends that Bunch’s guilty plea waived his

right to raise the above claim on appeal. A valid guilty plea waives

all antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. Tollett v. Henderson, 411

U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Here, the attack is on Bunch’s sentence, which

was imposed after entry of the guilty plea. Hence, by pleading guilty,

Bunch did not waive his right to bring the instant claim. 

The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids "multiple punishments for the

same offense." North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969).

Bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), is a lesser included offense of

armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d). United States v. Whitley,

759 F.2d 327, 331 (4th Cir. 1985) (en banc). In light of the double

jeopardy violation in this case, we remand so that the district court

may vacate the bank robbery convictions and associated sentences.

See id.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

REMANDED

2 UNITED STATES v. BUNCH
Jake Hayden Thomas

23-96 Brighton Ct

Lanark, IL 61046

815-238-3413

Thomjake1993@yahoo.com

Dear Federal Aviation Administration,

I am writing you in regards to CFR 14 61.160 Restricted Airline Transport Pilot (RATP) 

qualifications. I am a graduate from the University of Dubuque with a Bachelors Degree of Science in 

Flight Operations. I unfortunately only qualify for the Associate degree, 250 hour reduction because I am 

6 credits short on the approved coursework. I obtained my private pilot’s license pre college thinking 

that I was getting a jump start on my career, when in reality I’m just sitting alongside fellow pilots 250 

hours behind me. I completed my instrument, commercial and multiengine add on at the University of 

Dubuque under part 141 rules. I then completed my flight instructor initial and instrument under 61 

rules in my own personal aircraft. The approved coursework wasn’t released to the students until my 

final semester of college so there was no room for adjustment.

I’m writing to you for an exception to the rule. I graduated from the University of Dubuque in just 3 

years and hold a bachelors degree in flight operations. I have a 100% first time pass rate along with a 

perfect safety record. Ever since the RATP ruling was made I have been planning my future and banking 

on qualifying for the 500 hour reduction. I made sure that I put in my very most effort to graduate early 

to start my career as an airline pilot. I was very disappointed when the approved coursework was 

published to find out I will fall 6 credits short.

If you cannot grant me any exception can I please get an explanation on why only certain classes of the 

degree count toward the RATP. I have included the classes I have completed to be referenced against 

the University of Dubuque’s approved coursework:

AVI 145 1 FLI 334 2

AVI 231 4 FLI 435 2

AVI 232 3 PHY 151 4

AVI 233 3

AVI 332 3 Not approved:

AVI 346 3 AVI 131 (TRANSFERRED) 2

AVI 349 3 FLI 131 (TRANFERED) 3

AVI 401 3 AVI 495 3

AVI 430 2 AVI 496 3

AVI 431 3

AVI 434 3

AVI 435 2

AVI 447 3

ESC 214 3

FLI 132 2

FLI 231 3

FLI 232 2
Of the approved credits, it adds up to a total of 54. If you were to total in the transferred credits and the 

coursework not included it amounts to 65.

Thank you for your time and consideration!
From: crkerson@pacbell.net [mailto:crkerson@pacbell.net] 

Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 11:13 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022

I am a neurotherapist who provides neurofeedback treatment to individuals with Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely

recognized effective non‐medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50

studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, substance use

disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature concluded “Neurofeedback meets the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for” Clinical Guidelines for treatment of ADHD.”

This means that neurofeedback meets the same criteria as medication for treating ADHD, of which 60%

of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off label," and that neurofeedback “should always be considered

as an intervention for this disorder by the clinician.”  

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, Blue Cross, Cigna,

and Amerigroup.

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health problem. The reasons given

by the insurance companies for this denial fell into two categories: 1) our company does not cover

biofeedback for mental health problems or 2) there is not yet sufficient evidence for the efficacy of

neurofeedback. As such, they are using evidence‐based criteria that are far more restrictive for mental

health services than the criteria which are used for medical/surgical services. There are many routine

medical and surgical procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does

neurofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are generally not limited because of concerns

about how many controlled studies have been performed about them.  

We believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute should require that

employers and plans pay for the same range and scope of services for behavioral treatments as they do

for medical surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care criteria

and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders when compared to medical surgery. Today

plans are being more restrictive in how they review evidenced‐based mental health and Substance

Abuse Treatments when compared to medical surgical treatments. This violates both the intent and

letter of the parity statute and we hope that the regulations will clarify that this can't continue.

Thank you for your attention,

Cynthia Kerson, PhD, BCIA, BCIA‐EEG

Marin Biofeedback

www.marinbiofeedback.org

1925 Francisco Blvd. E. #12

San Rafael, CA 94901

(415) 485‐1342

Fax (415) 485‐1348

Skype: crkerson

3Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail notice.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

SAMUEL PAINTER,

1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

LOUISE PAINTER,

Respondent Below, Appellee.

§

§ No. 262, 2021

§

§ Court Below: Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ File No. CN14-02909

§ Petition No. 20-13918

§ 

§ 

 Submitted: September 14, 2021

 Decided: September 17, 2021

O R D E R

(1) The appellant (“Father”) filed a notice of appeal from a Family Court 

order, dated July 19, 2021, that considered Father’s petition for modification of 

visitation with the parties’ child. The Family Court’s decision ordered Father and 

the child to begin engaging in family therapy to work toward increased contact and 

provided that the court would hold a review hearing on December 9, 2021, to 

consider what progress had been made before taking further action.

(2) Absent compliance with Supreme Court Rule 42, the appellate 

jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final orders.2 An order is final, 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 Hines v. Williams, 2018 WL 2435551 (Del. May 29, 2018).
2

rather than interlocutory, when it “leaves nothing for future determination or 

consideration.”3 

(3) The Clerk issued a notice directing Father to show cause why the appeal 

should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 42 in 

taking an appeal from an interlocutory order. On September 2, 2021, the Court 

received the certified mail receipt indicating that the notice to show cause had been 

delivered. A timely response to the notice to show cause would have been due on 

or before September 13, 2021. The appellant having failed to respond to the notice 

to show cause within the required ten-day period, dismissal of this action is deemed 

to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

3 Werb v. D’Alessandro, 606 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1992).