alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–512 PDF 2012

[ERRATA] 

SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: WHY IS 

A JOB-CREATING, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MEETING RESISTANCE AT TSA? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 7, 2012 and FEBRUARY 16, 2012 

Serial No. 112–68 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
2 

ERRATA 

The referenced hearing held before the House Committee on 

Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Transportation Security was 

inadvertently printed with the wrong serial number on the title 

page. The correct serial number is 112–66.
-----Original Message----- 

From: bob.avery@adlife.com [mailto:bob.avery@adlife.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:32 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

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

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

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

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

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

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

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Avery 

50 High St. 

Mansfield, MA 02048
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1102.html[7/22/2015 10:55:31 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-51ku

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-1102

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Godgave me a life to lead and to take care of myself and children. I received no help from a federal agency.

 Please allow each person to determine their own retirement success. GOvernment should not be allowed to

 discredit the years we have worked or the money we have made. You are not my GOD. I did not come here to

 be a slave. Reaching retirement age should come with peace of mind and body. What you propose does not

 cover it.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KENDALL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 162 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 150 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 35
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 150

                          [Report No. 107-81]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2001

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider reports from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day they are presented to the House is waived with respect to 
resolutions reported on the legislative day of May 26, 2001, providing 
for consideration or disposition of any measure to provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2002, any amendment thereto, any conference 
report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a 
conference thereon.

                                                  House Calendar No. 35

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 150

                          [Report No. 107-81]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 24, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 934

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish election day in Presidential

election years as a legal public holiday, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 7, 2001

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish election

day in Presidential election years as a legal public holiday, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTION DAY IN PRESI4 DENTIAL ELECTION YEARS AS A LEGAL PUB5 LIC HOLIDAY.

6 Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is

7 amended by inserting after the item relating to Columbus

8 Day the following new item:
2

•HR 934 IH

1 ‘‘Presidential Election Day, the Tuesday next

2 after the first Monday in November in 2004 and

3 each fourth year thereafter.’’.

4 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TREATMENT OF

5 DAY BY PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.

6 It is the sense of Congress that private employers in

7 the United States should give their employees a day off

8 on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November

9 in 2004 and each fourth year thereafter to enable the em10 ployees to cast votes in the Presidential and other elections

11 held on that day.

Æ
From: Jeremy Baker [mailto:jeremyhbaker@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:19 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed "Conflicts of Interest Rule". I am a 

financial representative that works with the middle market. Many of my clients that have a 401k 

and are ready to retire are looking for income - not having an investment. These aren't people 

with millions in the bank - if lucky they're looking at $100,000 and maybe (maybe) their home is 

paid off.

There is no single solution that you can apply to a group. Every person is different and has 

different goals. Some people need income right away and some want to take money out when a 

situation arises. I've heard people say they want to leave their families in a better situation and 

others say they could care less. 

At 30,000 feet this rule might sound good but when I'm sitting at someone's kitchen table 

reviewing their needs, concerns and fears I need many options to present solutions. These 

options I give people help them make a decision - usually over multiple meetings and weeks; if 

not months.

Lastly, I believe this rule tries to control people's money. Just because a plan has given someone 

tax deferred growth doesn't mean the government should get to choose what they do with it when 

they retire.

--

Thank you,

Jeremy Baker

_ _

The information contained in this email and any attachments is strictly confidential and is for the 

use of the intended recipient. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of any part of 

this email or any attachment is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 

sender by return email and delete all copies including attachments.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE KEITH BARNES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-97-337, CA-00-1488-4-22) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Keith Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wayne Keith Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Barnes , Nos. CR-97-337; CA00-1488-4-22 (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of her knowledge: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon   | 
|Marsha A. Mongeon       | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 

August 14, 2009
10150 Meanley Drive, 1st Floor • San Diego • CA 92131 • (858) 530-4400 • Fax (858) 530-4404 

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

May 20, 2015

Mr. Thomas E. Perez, Secretary

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Regulation Identifier Number: RIN 1210-AB32 (Fiduciary Rule)

Dear Secretary Perez:

I am contacting you on behalf of CUSO Financial Services, LP (“CFS”). CFS is a securities 

broker/dealer that is registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the 

“SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board, all fifty (50) states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. CFS is also a Registered 

Investment Adviser with the SEC. 

I am respectfully requesting that that the comment period regarding the above referenced 

proposal be extended to 120 days.

CFS would like sufficient time to analyze how the rule will impact our clients, our advisors, and our 

business practices, especially within the IRA sphere. Additionally, we want to ensure that CFS is able 

to provide the DOL with thoughtful, constructive commentary that will be helpful in your review of 

the proposal. Due to the length and complexity of the proposal, we believe that neither of the above 

objectives can be adequately accomplished within the 75-day comment period that DOL has attached 

to the proposal.

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

/s/ 

Maria J. Seedner

Corporate Counsel
§ 23.47 What is the base for a recipient's goal for concessions other than car rentals? ( a ) As a recipient, the base for your goal includes the total gross receipts of concessions, except as otherwise provided in this section.
( b ) This base does not include the gross receipts of car rental operations.
( c ) The dollar amount of a management contract or subcontract with a non-ACDBE and the gross receipts of business activities to which a management or subcontract with a non-ACDBE pertains are not added to this base.
( d ) This base does not include any portion of a firm's estimated gross receipts that will not be generated from a concession.
Example to paragraph (d): A firm operates a restaurant in the airport terminal which serves the traveling public and under the same lease agreement, provides in-flight catering service to air carriers. The projected gross receipts from the restaurant are included in the overall goal calculation, while the gross receipts to be earned by the in-flight catering services are not.
L”..•‘PennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionRachelCarsonStateOfficeBuildingHarrisburg,PA17105-2063June6,2008Secretary717-787-2814RECEIVEDMr.DonaldS.WelshJUN112008RECRegionalAdministratorEPARegiOnIII(3APOO)EPA.REGIONiii1650ArchStreetOFFIEOFREGJONALADMINISTRATORJUN132fl08Philadelphia,PA19103-2029DearMr.Welsh:BivisionDirector(3AP11)ThisletterisinreferencetotwoStateImplementationPlan(SIP)revisionssubmittedtotheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)RegionifibythePennsylvaniaDepartmentoftheEnvironment(DEP)underseparatecoversdatedDecember7,2007.ThoseSIPrevisionsaddressedtherequirementsofCleanAirAct(CAA)Sections110(a)(2)(A)-(M)andSection110(a)(2)(D)(i)thatarerelevanttotheeight-hourozoneandthe1997fineparticulatematter(PM2.5)NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS).Thepurposeofthisletteristo:(1)ClarifyastatementintheDecember7thSection110(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll)SIPrevision;and(2)CertifyPennsylvania’scompliancewiththeportionsofCAAsections110(a)(2)(C)and(J)relatedtoPennsylvania’sPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)regulationsforPM2.5TheDecember7thSIPrevisionforSection110(a)(2)(D)(i)includedthefollowingstatement:“TheCommonwealthconfirmsthatitismeetingtherequirementfortheuseofPM10asasurrogateforPM2.5inthePSDandNonattainmentNewSourceReview(NNSR)programs.”ThisletterclarifiesthattheDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection(DEP)andPhiladelphiaCounty’slocalairqualityagencyare“meetingtherequirementfortheuseofPM10asasurrogateforPM2.5inthePSDandNNSRprograms”bycomplyingwithEPA’sApril5,2005,StevenD.PagememorandumentitledImplementationofNewSourceReviewRequirementsinPM2.5NonattainmentAreas,andtheOctober23,1997,JohnSeitzmemorandumentitledInterimImplementationofNewSourceReviewRequirementsforPM2.5DEPandPhiladelphia’slocalairqualityagencywillcontinuetoimplementtheseprogramsinthisfashionuntilandunlessEPAissuesregulationspertainingspecificallytoPM2.5Basedupontheaboveclarification,thislettercertifiesPennsylvania’scompliancewiththePSDportionoftheSections110(a)(2)(C)and(J)forPM2.5TheCommonwealthcertifiesthatDEPandPhiladelphiaCounty’slocalairqualityagencyaremeetingtherequirementfortheuseofPM10asasurrogateforPM2,5inthePSDandNNSRprogramsbycomplyingwithEPA’sApril5,2005,StevenD.PagememorandumentitledImplementationofNewSourceReviewAnEqualOpportunityEmployerwww.dep.state.pa.usPrintedonRecycledPaperCCMr.DonaldS.Welsh2June6,2008RequirementsinFM25NonattainmentAreas,andOctober23,1997,JohnSeitzmemorandumentitled,InterimImplementationofNewSourceReviewRequirementsforPM25.Atthistime,weanticipatethatDEPwillsubmitaSIPrevisionaddressingAlleghenyCounty’sPSDprograminJune2008.ThatSIPrevisionwillalsoaddresstheAlleghenyCountylocalairagency’suseofPM10asasurrogateforPM2.5asdescribedintheprecedingparagraphandcompliancewiththePSDportionsofCAASections110(a)(2)(C),and(J)andNNSRportionsofCAASection110(a)(2)(D)(i).Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthissubmittal,orrequireadditionalinformation,pleasecontactJoyceE.Epps,DirectoroftheBureauofAirQuality,bye-mailatjeepps@state.pa.usorbytelephoneat717-787-9702.Sincerely,
§ 244.5 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $1,086, but not more than $35,516 per day, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed $142,063 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
( b ) As specified in § 244.21, FRA may also exercise any of its other enforcement remedies if a railroad fails to comply with § 244.21.
( c ) Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false entry in a record or report required by this part shall be subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311.
[67 FR 11604, Mar. 15, 2002, as amended at 69 FR 30595, May 28, 2004; 72 FR 51198, Sept. 6, 2007; 73 FR 79705, Dec. 30, 2008; 77 FR 24423, Apr. 24, 2012; 81 FR 43113, July 1, 2016; 82 FR 16135, Apr. 3, 2017; 83 FR 60750, Nov. 27, 2018; 84 FR 37075, July 31, 2019; 86 FR 1760, Jan. 11, 2021; 86 FR 23256, May 3, 2021; 87 FR 15870, Mar. 21, 2022; 88 FR 1129, Jan. 6, 2023; 88 FR 89564, Dec. 28, 2023]
* 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. 98-40635 Summary Calendar

EDWIN WAYNE GARDENHIRE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOE MAX TAYLOR, SHERIFF, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-98-CV-18

- - - - - - - - - - March 4, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). In this civil rights case, defendant, Sheriff Joe Max Taylor, has filed a notice of appeal from an order of the district court granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Galveston County and Sheriff Taylor. The motion was granted as to claims against Sheriff Taylor in his official capacity; it was denied as to claimsNo. 98-40635 -2- against Sheriff Taylor in his individual capacity and as to claims against Galveston County. Federal appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to jurisprudential exception or which can be properly certified as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or which can be properly certified for appeal by the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co. , 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army , 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). Sheriff Taylor’s motion in the district court was not based on qualified immunity, nor did the district court’s order and judgment contain a ruling on qualified immunity. As a result, the district court's partial final judgment is not an appealable interlocutory order. See Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1975). We are therefore without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
From: mickey harte [mailto:hartemickey@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:26 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Minimum Deductibles

Give minimums of 20 for Md office visit, 25 for specialists and 10 for any generic med 

and 15 for non generic med. People need to know this is a benefit that is not free. 
From: mickey harte [mailto:hartemickey@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:33 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Minimimums Deductible

I advocate minimums to have users respect the sevices. Office Minimum, $20.00 for all 

citizens Specialists $25.00 and all drugs minimum $10.00 and $15.00 for non generic 

meds.
Exhibit 21.4



                      JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                              AT DECEMBER 31, 2003



                                                                  STATE OF
   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                      BUSINESS             ORGANIZATION
   ------------------                      --------             ------------


JCP&L PREFERRED CAPITAL, INC.        SPECIAL-PURPOSE FINANCE      DELAWARE
  JCP&L CAPITAL, L.P.                SPECIAL-PURPOSE FINANCE      DELAWARE

  JCP&L TRANSITION FUNDING LLC       SPECIAL-PURPOSE FINANCE      DELAWARE


Note:  JCP&L, along with its affiliates Met-Ed and Penelec, collectively own all
       of the  common  stock  of  Saxton  Nuclear  Experimental  Corporation,  a
       Pennsylvania  nonprofit  corporation  organized for nuclear  experimental
       purposes  which  is now  inactive.  The  carrying  value  of the  owners'
       investment has been written down to a nominal value.
#### § 33.3 Program eligibility.

Certain programs to promote the national defense are eligible for priorities and allocations support. These include programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Other eligible programs include emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 *et seq.*) and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.
Dominion Homes, Inc. 2006 Director Compensation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.26 
 Dominion Homes, Inc. 2006 Director Compensation Plan 
  

	1.	$40,000 annual fee for each outside director ($10,000 per quarter) 

  

	2.	Additional $5,000 annual fee for each Audit Committee member (other than Audit Committee Chair) and each committee Chair (other than Audit Committee Chair) ($1,250 per quarter)


  

	3.	Additional $10,000 annual fee for Audit Committee Chair ($2,500 per quarter) 

  

	4.	Additional $20,000 annual fee for the Lead Director ($5,000 per quarter) 

 Director and Committee Fees shall be paid quarterly in advance. 
  

	5.	Each outside director also receives, on the first day after the annual meeting, a grant of non-qualified stock options to purchase 2,500 common shares at an exercise price equal to
the fair market value of the common shares on the date of grant.