alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT.

#### Frederick H. Green agt. C. Lippincott and another.

*Demurrer to complaint for nonjoinder!' cfpm'ties defendant.*

Where the complaint alleged that there were “ other individuals comprising the firm of J. B. Lippincott & Company ” besides the two persons made defendant, *held,*that the other partners are necessary parties, and that to render the omission to make them parties available on demurrer, the defect appearing on the face of the complaint, it was not necessary that it should also appear that the other parties were living.

Demubbeb to complaint.

*Special Term, February,*1877.

*Mr. Fdward Patterson,*for demurrer.

*Mr. R. M. Brown,*opposed.

Van Vorst, J.

The statement in the complaint is, in substance, that there are *“*other individuals comprising the firm of J. B. Lippincott & Company ” other than the two defendants named.

As the suit is brought for the alleged breach of a contract made by the copartners with the plaintiff, the other partners are necessary parties, and the omission to make them defendant is a good ground of demurrer, the defect appearing on the face of the complaint.

To.make the ground of demurrer available it was not necessary that it should appear in the complaint that the *34other partners were living *(Burgess*agt. *Abbott,*6 *Hill,*135; *Eaton*agt. *Balcom,*33 *How.,*81; *Code, sec.*144, *sub.*4).

As to the defect of parties defendant the demurrer is well taken, but I do not regard the objection that several causes of action have been improperly joined as well taken. The cause of action seems to be entire and to rest upon the breach of the contract.

The matter in regard to the retention by the defendants of the books, I do not consider a statement of an independent cause of action. It may, however, add to the defendants’ damages for the breach.

The first 'cause of demurrer is sustained, but the second is overruled.

The plaintiff is at liberty to amend, upon payment of costs.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0557.html[7/20/2015 8:39:15 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-d4as

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-0557

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Phillip A Maldonado

General Comment

The last thing I need is some politician telling me how I can or can not spend my retirement that I myself saved.

I personally earned it without any help from the government whatsoever so paws off
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1331.html[7/22/2015 10:29:42 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvh-tu4v

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-1331

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Scott Kirk

General Comment

I have plan my own retirement. I don't need government to think for me.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2401 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2401

To provide for monthly payments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
  certain children of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation while in 
                           military service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1995

 Mr. Hyde (for himself and Mr. Fawell) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for monthly payments by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
  certain children of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation while in 
                           military service.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN OF RADIATION- EXPOSED VETERANS.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall pay to an 
individual described in subsection (b) a monthly amount determined in 
the same manner as applies under chapter 11 of title 38, United States 
Code, in the case of veterans with service-connected disabilities. 
Payments under this section shall be made in the same manner, and in 
accordance with the same procedures, as apply to payments of 
compensation under such chapter.
    (b) Covered Individuals.--This section applies to any person--
            (1) who is the biological child of an individual who is a 
        radiation-exposed veteran; and
            (2) who has incurred a disease that (A) is a statutory 
        radiation-associated disease, or (B) is specified in the 
        regulations prescribed by the Secretary under subsection 
        (c)(2).
    (c) Determination of Additional Conditions in Children Related to 
Radiation Exposure.--(1) The Secretary shall determine for purposes of 
this section those diseases (in addition to statutory radiation-
associated diseases) with respect to which there is reason to believe 
that occurrence in a person may be attributable to exposure to 
radiation of a biological parent of that person.
    (2) The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation each disease that 
the Secretary determines under paragraph (1).
    (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) The term ``radiation-exposed veteran'' has the meaning 
        given such term in paragraph (3) of section 1112(c) of title 
        38, United States Code.
            (2) The term ``statutory radiation-associated disease'' 
        means a disease specified in paragraph (2) of section 1112(c) 
        of title 38, United States Code.
    (e) Effective Date.--No payment may be made under this section for 
any month before the month in which this Act is enacted.
                                 <all>
```
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, 2015 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/ Karyn J. HaleKaryn J. HaleChief Financial Officer








February 29, 2016
EX-10.1






COMMERCIAL VEHICLE GROUP, Inc.

2006 BONUS PLAN




Formula for Participants



Bonus Factor (BF) 1 is the factor awarded to participants in the plan (percent of base salary).



Bonus Factor (BF) 2 makes up 50% of the bonus calculation and is defined differently for each level
of participation as outlined below. The threshold level for a payout is based on the minimum
acceptable performance of the company and/or individual business operation and is set at 90% of the
current year target for Net Income and /or EBITDA. Achieving 90% of the current year target for Net
Income and/or EBITDA would result in an 80% payout. There are no limits on the maximum potential
payout. Both Net Income and EBITDA performance for the year shall be calculated after all
applicable bonus expenses for the year are reflected and accrued at the end of the current year. In
the event that a business does not attain its threshold target for the year, at the end of the
current year, bonuses for that particular business will be suspended or prorated as appropriate.



BF2 for participants in the plan will be measured as follows: Executive Management will be based
on 100% Net Income for CVG, Inc. Divisional Management will be based on 60% Net Income of CVG,
Inc. and 40% Global Growth/Sales for CVG, Inc. Operational Management will be based on 25% Net
Income of CVG, Inc. and 75% EBITDA relative to their business.



Bonus Factor (BF) 3 makes up the remaining 50% of the bonus calculation and consists of a mix of
measurements specific to each participant’s responsibilities and to reflect the results necessary
for continued growth. BF3 Goals will be in support of operating targets for the 2006 business plan
in each participant’s functional area. Unless otherwise noted, BF3 factors are equally weighted
and results are combined as an average to calculate this factor. Objectives for each position are
mandatory and assigned through the performance appraisal process as the business dictates. They
must be critical to the company’s immediate and long-term priorities and represent a significant
effort on the individual’s part. They should be measurable and must be approved by the
individual’s immediate manager; subject to final CFO and CEO approval. BF3 factors for the
Executive Management will be submitted to the compensation committee and updated on a quarterly
basis, as needed.



The BF3 portion of each individual’s incentive calculation shall be limited to their related BF2
measurement unless otherwise specified and approved by the CEO, CFO and/or the compensation
committee, as applicable. For example, if the participant’s BF2 formula presents a payout of 110%
for the given year (via Net Income and/ or EBITDA); the maximum BF3 potential for any individual
may be limited to 110%. Management and the compensation committee reserve the right to review and
approve, at its sole discretion, all BF3 percentages for all incentive plan participants.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0237 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-9629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Elena Labkovsky 

Address: 

1610 Washington st 

Evanston, IL, 

General Comment 

CMS – 4140 - NC 

I am a clinical psychologist who provides EEG biofeedback treatment to 

individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. EEG 

biofeedback 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 EEG biofeedback in the treatment of 

ADHD, Substance Use disorders and Autism. . A recent review of this literature 

concluded “EEG biofeedback meets the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for” Clinical Guidelines “for treatment of ADHD.” 

This means that EEG biofeedback meets the same criteria as to medication for 

treating ADHD, and that EEG biofeedback “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 EEG 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 28, 2009 

Received: May 28, 2009 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 809bc574 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
biofeedback. 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 

EEG biofeedback. 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 

statue should require that employers and plans pay for the same range and 

scope of services for Behavioral Treatments as they do for Med Surg benefits and 

that a plan cannot be more restrictive in their managed care criteria and reviews 

for MH and SA disorders when compared to Med Surg. Today plans are being 

more restrictive in how they review evidenced based Mental Health and Substance 

Abuse Treatments when compared to Med Surg 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.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135102 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135102 

 COA: 268842 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-000086-FC 

ALEX LAVERN GOLDMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal August 28, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0604 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 11, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 37.61 Public transportation programs and activities in existing facilities. ( a ) A public entity shall operate a designated public transportation program or activity conducted in an existing facility so that, when viewed in its entirety, the program or activity is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
( b ) This section does not require a public entity to make structural changes to existing facilities in order to make the facilities accessible by individuals who use wheelchairs, unless and to the extent required by § 37.43 (with respect to alterations) or §§ 37.47 or 37.51 of this part (with respect to key stations). Entities shall comply with other applicable accessibility requirements for such facilities.
( c ) Public entities, with respect to facilities that, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, are not required to be made accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs, are not required to provide to such individuals services made available to the general public at such facilities when the individuals could not utilize or benefit from the services.
#### § 211.23 Additional public proceedings.

The Administrator may conduct other public proceedings that he finds necessary or desirable. For example, he may invite interested persons to present oral arguments, participate in conferences, or appear at informal hearings.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 23, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00222

- CV

Aniol III, Ltd. d/b/a River Gardens , Appellant s

v.

D. B. and C. P., Individually and as Next Friends of D. P.,

an Incapacitated Adult , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from th e interlocu tory order signed by the tr i a l court on April 19, 2021

.

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court

agrees that the mot ion should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es

the appe al with prejudice

. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party , both in

this Court and in the court below.
-----Original Message-----

From: Sherrill Futrell [mailto:safutrell@ucdavis.edu] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:31 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: I support the DOL retirement advice rule [RIN 1210-AB32]

I appreciate and support the Dept. of Labor in its "fiduciary interest" rule making and hope this letter 

helps convince you that Americans care about their retirement savings. Just like the self-interested 

advice they give, retirement advisers are fighting the rule to protect the money they make off

investments that earn them more money, even if they aren’t as good for my bottom line.

Sherrill Futrell

151 Inner Cir

Davis, CA 95618

530-756-6426
-----Original Message----- 

From: richard_weis@comcast.net [mailto:richard_weis@comcast.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:07 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 28, 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, 

Richard Weis 

14401 Traville Gardens 

Rockville, MD 20850
#### § 227.11 Responsibility for compliance.

Although the duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, any person, including a contractor for a railroad, who performs any function covered by this part must perform that function in accordance with this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 381

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 381 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 381.600 Do waivers, exemptions, and pilot programs preempt State laws and regulations?

Yes. During the time period that a waiver, exemption, or pilot program authorized by this part is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with the waiver, exemption, or pilot program with respect to a person operating under the waiver or exemption or participating in the pilot program.
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.1007 Determination of violation. ( a ) *General.* The Agency Official may issue an order to suspend or revoke the registration of one or more motor carriers if he or she determines that the motor carrier or motor carriers have reincarnated or affiliated to avoid regulatory compliance or mask or otherwise conceal regulatory noncompliance, or a history of noncompliance.
( b ) *Reincarnation or affiliation.* The Agency Official may determine that one or more motor carriers are reincarnated if there is substantial continuity between entities such that one is merely a continuation of the other. The Agency Official may determine that motor carriers are affiliates if business operations are under common ownership, common management, common control or common familial relationship. To make these determinations, the Agency Official may consider, among other things, the factors in 49 CFR 386.73(c) and examine, among other things, the records identified in 49 CFR 386.73(d).
( c ) *Regulatory noncompliance.* The Agency Official may determine that a motor carrier or its officer, employee, agent, or authorized representative, avoids regulatory compliance or masks or otherwise conceals regulatory noncompliance, or a history of noncompliance by operating or attempting to operate a motor carrier as a reincarnated or affiliated entity to: ( 1 ) Avoid complying with an FMCSA order;
( 2 ) Avoid complying with a statutory or regulatory requirement;
( 3 ) Avoid paying a civil penalty;
( 4 ) Avoid responding to an enforcement action; or
( 5 ) Avoid being linked with a negative compliance history.
Base Salaries of Named Executive Officers of the Registrant



 EXHIBIT 10.6 
 Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation 
 Base Salaries of Executive Officers of the Registrant

 As of March 25, 2006, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of the executive officers of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation:

  

				
	 Robert H. Gilliam Jr.
	  	$	175,000
	 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  		
		
	 Carroll E. Shelton
	  	$	98,760
	 Senior Vice President
	  		
		
	 Bryan M. Lemley
	  	$	90,520
	 Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
TS- CCGL81

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B, 2

CA S Inventory Expert Service Report and Chemical Structure of the New Chemical Substance sStatus: 12/2/2014

Composition
WILLIAM RINGWOOD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-3228

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 29, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

William Ringwood, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.