alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0503.html[7/20/2015 7:48:22 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-63fv

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-0503

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Monte Russell

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan for my own retirement.

Take your hands out of my bank account and any retirement accounts I have.

Go to work and make your own money for retirement!
#### § 350.407 How and when does an eligible entity apply for High Priority Program funds?

FMCSA publishes application instructions and criteria for eligible activities to be funded under this subpart in a NOFO at least 30 days before the financial assistance program application period closes. Entities must submit the application by the date prescribed in the NOFO.
§ 179.4 Changes in specifications for tank cars. ( a ) Proposed changes in or additions to specifications for tanks must be submitted to the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety, AAR, for consideration by its Tank Car Committee. An application for construction of tanks to any new specification may be submitted with proposed specification. Construction should not be started until the specification has been approved or a special permit has been issued. When proposing a new specification, the applicant shall furnish information to justify a new specification. This data should include the properties of the lading and the method of loading and unloading.
( b ) The Tank Car Committee will review the proposed specifications at its earliest convenience and report its recommendations through the Executive Director—Tank Car Safety to the Department. The recommendation will be considered by the Department in determining appropriate action.
[29 FR 18995, Dec. 29, 1964. Redesignated at 32 FR 5606, Apr. 5, 1967 and amended by Amdt. 179-41, 52 FR 36672, Sept. 30, 1987; 63 FR 52850, Oct. 1, 1998; 70 FR 73166, Dec. 9, 2005]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0632.html[7/21/2015 7:26:05 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-8ctj

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-0632

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dahlia Mckinney

General Comment

I am saving for my retirement and I don't want the government to start taking over my retirement plans. As it is

 they can't even manage what they are suppised to.
§ 244.11 Contents of a Safety Integration Plan. Each Safety Integration Plan shall contain the following information for each subject matter identified in § 244.13 or § 244.15: ( a ) A detailed description of how the applicant differs from each railroad it proposes to acquire or with which the applicant proposes to consolidate or merge, including the rules or instructions governing railroad operations of these railroads;
( b ) A detailed description of the proposed manner of operations of the resulting railroad, including a reconciliation of the differing rules or instructions governing railroad operations of the railroads involved in the transaction;
( c ) The measures to be taken to comply with applicable Federal railroad safety laws and regulations;
( d ) The proposed specific measures, expressed step-by-step, for each relevant subject matter that the applicant believes will result in safe implementation of the proposed transaction consistent with the requirements of this part;
( e ) The allocation of resources, expressed as human and capital resources within designated operating budgets, directed to complete safety-relevant operations subject to the transaction; and
( f ) The timetable, targeted in specific terms from commencement to completion, for implementing paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.
-----Original Message----- 

From: niev755@bellsouth.net [mailto:niev755@bellsouth.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 9:59 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 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, 

Irma Nieves 

1470 NE 123 St. 

North Miami, FL 33161
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 24, 1995 (133), Para 133.24 Hour of Meeting]
[Page 1586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.133.24  hour of meeting

  On motion of Mr. SOLOMON, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 11 
o'clock a.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 1995.
```
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0899.html[7/21/2015 5:51:11 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-osfl

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-0899

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

It is not the role-State or Federal of how, where or when I invest for MY Retirement.
From: Lyvers, Sandy [mailto:SLyvers@hilliard.com] On Behalf Of Allen, James

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 9:18 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

July 20, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations 

EBSA

Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule, Room N-5655

US Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington DC 20210

Hilliard Lyons fully supports the position submitted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets 

Association. We believe that the DOL proposal, if enacted, would ultimately undermine the efforts of 

American investors who are already challenged to save and invest for their retirement.

Our clients would be adversely affected by the DOL proposal. In particular, choice of account type, 

product selection and client choice regarding method of payment for advice will be restricted if this rule 

is enacted.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James R. Allen

President and CEO

James R. Allen, CFA

Chairman and CEO

Hilliard Lyons

500 West Jefferson Street

Louisville KY 40202

502-588-8604

fax 502-585-8901

Executive Assistant

Sandy Lyvers

502-588-9123

Caution: Do not send time sensitive, action oriented messages such as orders to buy or sell securities, fund transfer instructions, and check 

stop payments, etc., as it is our policy not to accept such items via e-mail. Electronic Mail may not be secure and could be intercepted by a 

third party. For your protection, avoid sending confidential information such as account or social security numbers to others or us.

This message may contain an advertisement of a product or service and thus may constitute a commercial electronic mail message under 

US Law. Securities offered by J.J.B. Hilliard, W.L. Lyons, LLC, Member NYSE, FINRA & SIPC, 500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 700, 

Louisville, KY 40202. The information in this correspondence is derived from sources we believe to be reliable but we cannot guarantee its 

accuracy. For specific information about your account and any account activity, your Hilliard Lyons customer monthly statement is the official 

document upon which you may rely. Hilliard Lyons does not offer tax, accounting or legal advice. Please consult your tax or legal advisor 

prior to making any decision which could affect your tax or legal situation.
If you do not wish to receive advertising or promotional messages from Hilliard Lyons at this e-mail address, click the following web link to 

unsubscribe: http://www.hilliard.com/donotemail/default.aspx
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 20-0722V

UNPUBLISHED

MARTHA KLUG,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: October 5, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Amy A. Senerth, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.

Alexa Roggenkamp, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On June 15, 2020, Martha Klug filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (“SIRVA”), which meets the definition of a Table SIRVA, after receiving the 

influenza vaccine on November 13, 2018. Petition at 1, ¶¶ 2, 9. Petitioner further alleges 

that she received the vaccine in the United States, that she suffered the residual effects 

of his SIRVA for more than six months, and that neither she nor any other party has filed 

a civil action or received compensation for her injury. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 9-11. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On October 4, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent has “concluded that [P]etitioner suffered a Table SIRVA, as 

defined by the Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further agrees that “based on 

the current record, [P]etitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under 

the Act.” Id. at 5. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
From: Dave Waldron [mailto:dave_waldron@live.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 3:19 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: Jeff Flake

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

The proposed rule will put the average investor at a great disadvantage when it comes to 

deciding how funds should be invested. This rule protects the knowledgeable investor which 

will leave the “average” person out of the loop. I am not a savvy investor and by that I mean 

it’s not something I do on a day-to-day basis so the advice I have received from my financial 

advisor over the years has been invaluable.

This rule will take that advantage away from people like me. I did my due diligence when 

selecting someone I could trust and confide in when it came to investing in funds for my 401k 

and this rule would eliminate that as an option. It’s important for people to be able to seek 

advice from people they trust when making decisions such as this.

Leave the “rule” as it is!

I don’t understand why the Department of Labor is thinking about such a rule other than a way 

to benefit fat cat friends of the Department which totally ignores the majority of the citizens of 

the United States.

Dave Waldron 

Councilmember

Apache Junction, AZ

480.250.0944

dave_waldron@live.com
#### In the Matter of the Application of the New York, Lackawanna and Western Railway Company to Acquire Real Estate of Robert T. Turner and others.

Award set aside; new appraisal directed by other commissioners. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Landon, J., dissenting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0523 STATE OF MONTANA

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHAEL VOYLES

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of

A ppellant’s mo tion for extension of t ime , and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including Nove mber 15, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 13 2023

09/13/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0523
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 12, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00903-CV

LATRICIA SMITH, Appellant

V.

RRE WESTHOLLOW HOLDINGS, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1054024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed November 3, 2014. The notice of 

appeal was filed November 7, 2014. A partial clerk’s record concerning indigency 

was filed November 21, 2014. The record reflects appellant filed an affidavit to 

proceed without advance payment of costs on appeal. On November 18, 2014, the 

trial court signed an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s claim of indigence. 
2

Appellant did not file a motion challenging the trial court’s order. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 20.1(j)(2). 

On January 13, 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing 

fee on or before January 28, 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 5. Appellant has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal 

is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal 

of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring 

response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan and Wise.
#### § 234.259 Warning time.

Each crossing warning system shall be tested for the prescribed warning time at least once every 12 months and when the warning system is modified because of a change in train speeds. Electronic devices that accurately determine actual warning time may be used in performing such tests.
-----Original Message----- 

From: aimeebussells@yahoo.com [mailto:aimeebussells@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:43 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, 

Aimee Bussells 

828 Royal St 

New Orleans, LA 70116
* 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. 98-50704 Summary Calendar

JOSEPH ANTHONY HUMISTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT; UNKNOWN AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CV-473

- - - - - - - - - - April 30, 1999 Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joseph Anthony Humiston, Texas prisoner # 436035, appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Humiston alleged that the chief of police of Austin and unknown Austin police officers illegally seized his vehicle and sold it at an auction in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Humiston argues on appeal that the district court erred, that the Department of Public Safety and Texas representatives were involved in a conspiracy of stealing cars,No. 98-50704 -2-

and that the district court never ruled on Humiston’s motion to amend his complaint to include the proper parties. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo . Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). The summary judgment evidence revealed 1) that the Department of Public Safety, and not the Austin police department, was the agency which seized Humiston’s vehicle and 2) that the defendants did not participate in or know about the seizure. The district court’s summary judgment dismissing Humiston’s claims against the Austin police officers was not

error. Humiston requested in his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to amend his complaint to add Elizabeth Watson, former Austin Chief of Police, and C. Scott, a D.P.S. officer as additional parties. No ruling was made on that request, but no reason is given for naming them as parties and no allegation of their liability is made.
AFFIRMED.
#### § 232.703 Power brakes and appliances for operating power-brake systems.

Requirements are contained in 49 CFR 232.103(l).
§ 29.209 On what basis may the Department reject a Tribe's final offer? The Department may reject a Tribe's final offer for any of the following reasons: ( a ) The amount of funds proposed in the final offer exceeds the applicable funding level to which the Tribe is entitled;
( b ) The subject of the final offer is an inherent Federal function that cannot legally be delegated to the Tribe;
( c ) Carrying out the PSFA would result in significant danger or risk to public health or safety; or
( d ) The Tribe is not eligible to participate in self-governance under section 23 U.S.C. 207(b).
#### Robert J. Livingston and others, *Appellants, v.*William H. Webb and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs,, on opinion of Larremore, J.
#### Michael J. Pillgrene v. James J. Paulman, Inc., a corporation of The State of Delaware.

*(January*30, 1950.)

Carey, J.,. sitting.

*Harold Leshem*for plaintiff.

*David B. Coxe*for defendant.

Superior Court for New Castle County,

No. 247,

Civil Action, 1948.

Carey, Judge.

While there is respectable authority to the contrary, it is my opinion that the plaintiff’s recovery in this case should be the value of the car on the date he lost possession of it, with interest. 3 Williston on Sales (Rev.Ed.) 383 and cases therein cited. The purpose of compensatory damages is to place the buyer in • a.s, *226good condition as he would have occupied had the title been good. The rule herein followed seems more in keeping with that purpose than the contrary principle. Of course, any discussion of the right to .recover items of consequential damage, such as the expense of defending the title, is beyond present needs.

The charge to the jury respecting damages was in accordance with the foregoing opinion.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday October 26, 1995 (135), Para 135.20 Enrolled Bills Signed]
[Page 1797]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.135.20  enrolled bills signed

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Oversight, reported that that 
committee had examined and found truly enrolled bills of the House of 
the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker:

       H.R. 716. An Act to amend the Fishermen's Protective Act; 
     and
       H.R. 1026. An Act to designate the United States Post 
     Office building located at 201 East Pikes Peak Avenue in 
     Colorado Springs, Colorado, as the ``Winfield Scott Stratton 
     Post Office.''
```
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0750.html[7/21/2015 11:31:30 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-lloj

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-0750

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: William Johannes

Organization: ME... Inc.

General Comment

.... Leave MY 401K... ALONE....
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0697 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Betty Jarusiewicz, PhD 

Address: 

267 Cypress Drive 

Bayville, NJ, 08721 

Email: bjarus@comcast.net 

Phone: 732-801-4505 

Organization: Atlantic Neurofeedback Center 

General Comment 

Here are the two main issues that we believe need to be addressed in your comments: 

1. The interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the comprehensive 

scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse (MH/SA) services and 

medical/surgical services. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the 

Departments in the interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for 

MH/SUD must be comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both 

across and within each classification. Unless parity in scope of services is required in the final 

regulations, the intent of the Act will not be achieved. 

2. In order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must specify more clearly that any 

treatment limitations (based on scientific review criteria) that are applied by plans must be 

comparable for MH/SUD and medical surgical benefits, and that scientific review criteria 

employed for MH/SUD services must be no more restrictive than those that are predominant 

across the broad range of medical/surgical benefits. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae5a29 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010