alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RELATED
FORM 10-K FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000352049
<NAME> TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,930,300
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    148,721
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         308,472
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       969,987
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,357,480
<COMMON>                                       195,687
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      602,113
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              5,437
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 803,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,355
<PREFERRED>                                    210,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,003,026
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   49,700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        1,665
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     48,491
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                36,244
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,201,762
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,357,480
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      897,259
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            36,275
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     704,169
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     740,444
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        156,815
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (4,585)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 152,230
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        94,941
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,289
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     16,926
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   40,363
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       70,129
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         281,521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 45447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission


Public Announcement; Pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine 
Act (Public Law 94-409) [5 U.S.C. Section 552b]

Agency Holding Meeting:  Department of Justice, United States Parole 
Commission.

Time and Date:  10 a.m., Thursday, July 26, 2007.

Place:  5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

Status:  Open.

Matters Considered:  At the July 26, 2007 meeting the Commission 
considered the following item that was placed on the agenda the day 
before the meeting, in addition to the items previously noticed:
    Consideration of the Commission's funding request for FY 2009. The 
Commission voted to approve the Chairman's proposed funding request by 
a vote of 3-1.

Agency Contact:  Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States 
Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

    Dated: August 9, 2007.
Rockne Chickinell,
General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-3978 Filed 8-10-07; 10:16 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
**EXHIBIT
23.2**


























**THE
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY**





**CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We hereby consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.
333-138101) of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company of our report dated
February 27, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, which
appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 27, 2007 relating to the financial statement
schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.














PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP





Cleveland,
OH


February 27,
2007
## Pr opo s e d R u l e : M a n d a t o r y Re p o r t i n g o f G r ee n h o u s e G a s E m i s s i o n s M ee ti n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n M ee t i n g s w i t h N o v e ll u s
D at e S ta ff C o n ta ct I n fo r m a ti o n ( N am e , e m a i l

, p h o n e # ) N am e of O r g a n i z a ti o n ( A t t a c h l i s t

o f al l a tt e n d ee s n a m e s a n d em ail s i f p o ss i b l e ) S u m ma r y o f D i s c u ss i o n ( e

. g

. ,
a pp l i c a b i l it y , r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , e t c .) W r i tt e n C o mm e n t s P r ov i d e d ?
D i d t h e y al s o

s u b mit t o D o c k e t ? D at e s e n t t o

E PA

- CC D

D i s c u ss i o n s f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2009 t o M a r c h 2010 i n c l u d i n g s i t e

v i s i t s

. K i r s t e n C a pp e l

,

c a pp e l

. k i r s t e n @ e

p a. gov , ( 202 ) 343

- 9556 N ov e l l u s :

• P a u l K r y s k a ( p a u l

. k r y s k a@ nov e l l u s

. c o m)

• G i s h u n H s u ( g i s h

. h s u @ nov e l l u s

. c o m)

• E P A a nd E P A c o n t r a c t o r s D i s c u ss i o n s i t e m s i n c l u d e d :

• M e t ho d s f

o r t r a c k i n g g a s

c o n s u m p t i o n i n c l u d i n g t h e u s e o f h ee l f a c t o r s ;

• E x i s t i n g m e t ho d s f

o r e s ti m a ti n g f a c i l i t y e mi ss i o n s a n d g a s t r a c k i n g b y p r o c e ss ; a nd

• A b a t e m e n t s y s t e m d e s t r u c t i o n o r

r e m o v a l e f

f i c i e n c y t e s t i ng

.

A l s o d i s c u s s e d r e f

i n e m e n t o f

s e m i c on d u c t o r m a n u f

a c t u r i ng p r o c e ss c a t e go r i e s i n c l u d i n g w a y s p r o c e ss c a t e go r i e s c o u l d b e r e f i n e d

t o b e s t c a p t u r e v a r i a b ili t y

. I n

a d d i ti o n , d i s c u s s e d t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f e mi s s i o n f

a c t o r s f o r t h e r e f i n e d

p r o c e ss c a t e go r i e s

. N A M a r c h 15

, 2010
#### § 29.203 What must a final offer contain?

A final offer must contain a description of the disagreement between the Department and the Tribe, the Tribe's final proposal to resolve the disagreement, including any draft proposed terms to be included in a compact, funding agreement, or amendment, and the name and contact information for the person authorized to act on behalf of the Tribe. If the final offer is insufficient for the Department to make a decision, the Department will notify the Tribe and request additional information. A request for more information has no effect on deadlines for response.
exv10w2



 







Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of the 1st
day of January, 2006, by and among Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), Midwest Bank and
Trust Company (the “Amendment”) (the “Bank” and together with the Company “Employer”) and James J.
Giancola (“Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement on September 28,
2004 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Executive and the Employer desire to amend Section 3(f) of the Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth in this
Amendment and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Executive and Employer agree as follows:




	1.	 	Amendment to Section 3.3(f). Section 3(f) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:
	 
	 	 	“Restricted Stock Award; Cancellation of Stock Option. As of January 1,
2006, in exchange for Executive’s surrender to the Company of an option to
acquire 100,000 shares of common stock of the Company, the Company grants to
Executive 29,316 restricted shares of common stock of the Company, subject
to the restrictions and limitations established when the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved restricted stock
awards on June 28, 2005 for officers of the Company. The restricted stock
granted under this Section shall be evidenced by a stock certificate and a
restricted stock award agreement which will contain terms and restrictions
not inconsistent with this Agreement and which will be subject to the terms
and conditions of the Company’s Stock and Incentive Plan.”
	 
	2.	 	Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not be
deemed or construed to amend any other term or condition of this Agreement and all of the
other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first
written above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE

	 	EMPLOYER
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ James J. Giancola

	 	Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	James J. Giancola
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Daniel R. Kadolph
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Daniel R. Kadolph
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	Senior Vice President and
	 

	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer
From: chudzmark@live.com [mailto:chudzmark@live.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:16 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, 

Mark Chudzik 

4839 Columbia Rd 

North Olmsted, OH 44070
To whom it may concern, 

I am a Julie Ann Harris, a mental health counselor 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. 

Sincerely, 

Julie Ann Harris 

MA, CART, LPC-Intern 

ARCHWAY 

1005 W. Texas 

Midland, Tx 79701 

432-682-2724
-----Original Message----- 

From: runner@ywave.com [mailto:runner@ywave.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:45 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, 

Mark Hulett 

14720 Mcintosh Ln SE 

Tenino, WA 98589
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

AMENDMENT No. 3 
 TO
WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 (“Amendment No. 3”) to the
Wholesale Distribution Agreement between CTI Life Sciences Limited (“CTILS”) and Max Pharma GmbH (“Wholesaler”) dated March 26, 2013 (the “Agreement”) is entered into effective July 9, 2013. 

The parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Article IV of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following new Section 4.8: 


“From time to time, an inpatient hospital customer of CTILS or Wholesaler in the Territory may request that Wholesaler sell Product to
such customer at a price that is lower than the agreed upon list price in the applicable country in the Territory for the Product. If authorized in advance in writing by CTILS, Wholesaler will be entitled to receive and CTILS will extend a credit to
Wholesaler for the value of the discount offered to such customer by Wholesaler for the Product.” 
  

	2.	Section 7.2(e) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: 


“(e) provide a report to CTILS specifying (i) the identity of the customers, and (ii) the unit and sales volumes of Product sold
and shipped to such customers, including sales, free or discounted goods or samples if applicable. The report shall also include the quantity of inventory by SKU (available and in-process inventory), including lot numbers in Wholesaler’s
warehouse. The frequency of the reports shall be once per week for the term of the Agreement; and” 
 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized
terms used in this Amendment No. 3 shall have the meanings assigned thereto in the Agreement. Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement as previously amended shall remain the same and in full force and effect.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereby accept and agree to the terms and conditions of this Amendment
No. 3. 
  

									
	CTI LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED	 		 	MAX PHARMA GMBH
					
	By:	 	 /s/ James Bianco, M.D.
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Kvestzer

					
	Name:	 	 James Bianco, M.D.
	 		 	Name:	 	 Michael Kvestzer

					
	Title:	 	 Director
	 		 	Title:	 	 GM

					
	Date:	 	 8/8/2013
	 		 	Date:	 	 7.8.2013
-----Original Message-----

From: William Burt 

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 3:05 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

To whom it may concern:

Americans do NOT need further government paternalistic interference in the way we choose to invest 

our money! We have already seen what the government takeover of our healthcare system has done: 

Reduce choice of providers and raise costs astronomically. We don’t need the same thing with our 

investment/retirement accounts. If you think Americans are too dimwitted to manage their retirement 

accounts effectively, consider how a bunch of complete IDIOTS in Washington, D.C. thought subsidizing 

Solyndra’s “green energy" was a bright idea. How and where I invest my retirement funds is NONE OF 

YOUR DAMNED BUSINESS!!

Capiche?

William Burt

P.S. I am not an investment/financial advisor.
§ 222.7 What is this regulation's effect on State and local laws and ordinances? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, issuance of this part preempts any State law, rule, regulation, or order governing the sounding of the locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade crossings, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20106.
( b ) This part does not preempt any State law, rule, regulation, or order governing the sounding of locomotive audible warning devices at any highway-rail grade crossing described in § 222.3(c) of this part.
( c ) Except as provided in §§ 222.25 and 222.27, this part does not preempt any State law, rule, regulation, or order governing the sounding of locomotive horns at private highway-rail grade crossings or pedestrian crossings.
( d ) Inclusion of SSMs and ASMs in this part or approved subsequent to issuance of this part does not constitute federal preemption of State law regarding whether those measures may be used for traffic control. Individual states may continue to determine whether specific SSMs or ASMs are appropriate traffic control measures for that State, consistent with Federal Highway Administration regulations and the MUTCD. However, except for the SSMs and ASMs implemented at highway-rail grade crossings described in § 222.3(c) of this part, inclusion of SSMs and ASMs in this part does constitute federal preemption of State law concerning the sounding of the locomotive horn in relation to the use of those measures.
( e ) Issuance of this part does not constitute federal preemption of administrative procedures required under State law regarding the modification or installation of engineering improvements at highway-rail grade crossings.
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2457

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel EXUBERANCE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 10, 1995

Mr. JONES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

EXUBERANCE.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en8 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
2

•HR 2457 IH

1 vessel EXUBERANCE (United States official number

2 698516).

Æ
#### § 176.190 Departure of vessel.

When loading of Class 1 (explosive) materials is completed, the vessel must depart from the port area as soon as is reasonably practicable.
-----Original Message----- 

From: surewin715@aol.com [mailto:surewin715@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:16 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 03, 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, 

Vicki Wyman 

7301 SW 113 St. 

Miami, FL 33156
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 04-1707 WILBERT W. KELLY, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. JOANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Selya, Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges .
Francis M. Jackson and Jackson & MacNichol on br ief for appellant. Paula Silsby , United States Attor ney , Robert J. Triba , Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration, and Eskunder Boyd , Special Assistant to the U.S. Attorney on brief for appellee.
March 22, 2005Per Curiam . After carefully considering the briefs

and record on appeal, we affirmfor substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate's report and adopted by the district court. Among other problems, the appellant made no showing of documented, severe mental impairment. Substantial evidence supportedthe determinat ion that his mental capacity was not signi ficantlylimited. Rodriguez v. Sec'y of Health & Hum a n Servs. , 647 F.2d 218 (1 st Cir. 1981). He also made no showing that the record cast doubt on his ability to perform light work. An ALJ may render "common-sense judgmen ts a bout functional capacity. " Gor dils v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv. , 921 F.2d 327, 329 (1 st Cir. 1990).

Finally, the appellant failed to preserve the issue of the ALJ's duty to develop the record. Passing allusion to the issue does not suffice. Keating v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv. , 848 F.2d 271 (1 st Cir. 1988).

Affirmed . 1st Cir. R. 27(c).

-2-