alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wells *v.*Eastman.

The opinion of a witness on the question of negligence in setting fire to brush in a time of high wind, founded upon his knowledge of the situation of the land and brush and his observation of the wind, and upon the same question in the management of the fire founded upon the acts and omissions of the defendant at the time, is competent evidence.

Case, for negligence in setting fire to brush on, the defendant’s land in a time of high wind blowing towards the plaintiff’s land, and so carelessly managing the fire that it escaped to the plaintiff’s land and burned his property. On trial before a referee, subject to the defendant’s exception, the following inquiries made of different witnesses were excluded:

“What, if anything, did you see, about the time this fire was set, in respect to the wind, situation of the land, brush, or its condition, which rendered it improper to set the fire that day?”

“ What, if anything, did the defendant and his men omit to do to keep the‘fire from the plaintiff’s land?”

The defendant moved to set aside the referee’s report made in favor of the plaintiff.

*Philip Carpenter,*for the defendant.

*&. F. Putnam,*for the plaintiff.

*508Allen, J.

The question of the defendant’s negligence was one to be determined from all the circumstances of the case, including the defendant’s conduct and the situation of the objects in connection with which the negligence is alleged. One question was, the suitableness of the time selected for setting lire to the brush. And in determining this, the velocity and direction of the wind, the relative situation of the land of both parties, the quantity, condition, and situation of the brush, and its distance from the plaintiff’s land, were material facts. The opinion of a witness who had observed these facts, upon the question of suitableness of time in setting the fire, might be more useful and valuable than a description of the facts would be to one who had not observed them, and was admissible in evidence. *Barnes*v. Heath, 58 N. H. 196. So, too, upon the question of the defendant’s want of reasonable care in the management of the fire, the opinion of a witness derived from observation of his conduct, acts, and omissions, at the time, is competent.

*Exceptions sustained.*

Blodgett and Carpenter, JJ., did not sit: the others concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 136 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                           May 9, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 
for fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the United States 
Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 
for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011. All points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
report shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the conference report to final adoption without intervening motion 
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### § 236.8 Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus.

Signal apparatus, the functioning of which affects the safety of train operation, shall be maintained in accordance with the limits within which the device is designed to operate.

[49 FR 3382, Jan. 26, 1984]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1250
BRUCE M. CROW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-1855) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce M. Crow, Appellant Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Kevin M artinBrown, Tax Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the tax court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellee. We have reviewed the record and the tax court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Crow v. Commissioner , No. 95-1855 (Tax Ct. Dec. 7, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4449]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE


Notice of Meeting

    Date/Time: Thursday, September 20, 2007, 9:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Location: 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-
3011.
    Status: Open Session--Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection 
(c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in 
subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, 
Public Law 98-525.
    Agenda: September 20, 2007 Board Meeting; Approval of Minutes of 
the One Hundred Twenty-Seventh Meeting (June 13-14, 2007) of the Board 
of Director; Chairman's Report; President's Report; Budget Discussion; 
Consideration of Grant Recommendations; Other General Issues.
    Contact: Tessie F. Higgs, Executive Office, Telephone: (202) 429-
3836.

    Dated: September 5, 2007.
Patricia P. Thomson,
Executive Vice President, United States Institute of Peace.
[FR Doc. 07-4449 Filed 9-6-07; 3:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-AR-M
#### § 24.201 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes general requirements governing the provision of relocation payments and other relocation assistance in this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
DECEMBER 31, 1996 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                       571
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,587
<PP&E>                                           2,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,117
<BONDS>                                             71
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,540
<OTHER-SE>                                     (25,371)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,357
<SALES>                                          2,380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,430
<CGS>                                            1,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,907)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,907)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.69)
        

</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: princessjenna@gmail.com [mailto:princessjenna@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:32 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 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, 

Jennifer Borenstein 

31 Arlene Ave 

Wilmington, MA 01887
§ 374.401 Minimum permissible limitations for baggage liability. Motor carriers of passengers and baggage subject to 49 U.S.C. 13501 may not publish tariff provisions limiting their liability for loss or damage to baggage checked by a passenger transported in regular route or special operations unless: ( a ) The amount for which liability is limited is $250 or greater per adult fare; and
( b ) The provisions permit the passenger, for an additional charge, to declare a value in excess of the limited amount, and allow the passenger to recover the increased amount (but not higher than the actual value) in event of loss or damage. The carriers may publish a maximum value for which they will be liable, but that maximum value may not be less than $1,000. Appropriate identification must be attached securely by the passenger to each item of baggage checked, indicating in a clear and legible manner the name and address to which the baggage should be forwarded if lost and subsequently recovered. Identification tags shall be made immediately available by the carriers to passengers upon request.
( c ) Carriers need not offer excess value coverage on articles listed in § 374.307(c)(3).
[81 FR 68345, Oct. 4, 2016]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1014.html[7/22/2015 6:38:03 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-bxne

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-1014

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Peter Dudziak

General Comment

The reason why I have IRA's is because I know how to take care of myself. Don't touch my money. I already

 know that social security won't be there for me because the government runs that program. STAY AWAY

 FROM MY MONEY!!!!

Yours truly,

Peter Dudziak 

(Libertarian, not a liberal)
Appendix 8A 

MassDEP 2011 Mobile Source Emissions Projections - Methodology and Calculation 

 

The methodology for developing the 2009 projected emissions is discussed in Section 9, 

Transportation Conformity. As noted, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and 

Public Works, Office of Transportation and Planning (EOT), used a recently updated version of 

the Massachusetts Statewide Travel Demand Model (TDM) to estimate daily vehicle miles 

traveled (DVMT) and vehicle speeds. Estimated emissions for 2009 are based on TDM runs 

performed by EOT using Mobile 6.2 emissions factors provided by MassDEP 

Due to EOT staff resource constraints, the 2011 contingency projections are not based on an 

updated TDM run. Rather, MassDEP used data from an earlier TDM to project 2011 emissions. 

MassDEP took 2009 data generated from the prior version of the TDM and compared this data 

to the results of the updated TDM. It used the differences in the two-modeled outcomes to create 

a ratio to adjust 2011 projections as shown below. 

MassDEP Calculation of 2011 On-Road Mobile Projections 

 2009 

Conformity 

Budget using 

latest TDM 

DEP 2009 

estimates using 

prior version of 

TDM DIFF % DIFF

DEP 2011 

Emissions 

estimates 

using prior 

TDM 

DEP Adjusted 

2011 estimates 

 EMA DVMT (000s) 135,657 138,007 -2350 -1.7% 

WMA DVMT (000s) 24,838 26,293 -1455 -5.5% 

STATE DVMT (000s) 160,495 164,300 -3805 -2.3% 

EMA VOC* 63.50 61.90 -1.60 -2.6% 51.22 52.54 

EMA NOX* 188.70 13.74 7.3% 142.46 132.09 

WMA VOC 10.73 11.90 1.17 9.8% 9.82 8.85 

WMA NOX 27.73 35.40 7.67 21.7% 26.72 20.93 

STATE VOC 74.23 73.80 -0.43 -0.6% 61.04 61.40 

STATE NOX 202.69 224.10 21.41 9.6% 169.18 153.02 

 

ks/inv2002-sip-rfp nov/29-2007/ mhd-dep-vmt-diff2 

*VOC and NOx are in tons per summer day.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2112** 

TISHISA BRAZIEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CHARLESTOWN OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; DUANE INGALSBE; JEFF BIERY , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 00718

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Tishisa Braziel , Appellant Pro Se. Wayne F. Cyron , James Gerard Smalley , CYRON & MILLER, LLP , Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Tishisa Braziel appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing her civil action alleging claims under the Fair Housing Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Braziel v. Charlestown Owners Ass’n , No. 1:15

-

cv - 00718

- AJT

- IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 4/29/15 10:40 AM

Received: April 28, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ijs-xiqu

Comments Due: July 06, 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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0246

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Dale Anderson

Address: 

255 Woodcliff Drive

Fairport, NY, 14450

Email: danderson@wsfg.com

Phone: 585-267-8000

General Comment

I would like the DOL to extend the comment period for the fiduciary proposed rule change to 

120 days. Below are the following reasons behind this request:

I need sufficient time to analyze how the rule will impact your clients, your advisors, and your 

business practices, especially within the IRA sphere;

I want to ensure that you are able to provide DOL with thoughtful, constructive commentary 

that will be helpful in their review of the proposal; and

Because of the length and complexity of the proposal, neither of the above objectives can be 

adequately accomplished within the 75-day comment period that DOL has attached to the 

proposal.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481abfbd3&format=xml&show... 4/29/2015
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 943

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the availability

of influenza vaccine through the program under section 317 of such Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 2001

Mr. CONDIT (for himself, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, and Mrs. EMERSON)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to

the availability of influenza vaccine through the program

under section 317 of such Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flu Vaccine Avail5 ability Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 943 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RE2 GARDING AVAILABILITY OF INFLUENZA VAC3 CINE.

4 Section 317(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42

5 U.S.C. 247b(j)) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing paragraph:

7 ‘‘(3)(A) For the purpose of carrying out activities re8 lating to influenza vaccine under the immunization pro9 gram under this subsection, there are authorized to be ap10 propriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the

11 fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Such authorization is in addi12 tion to amounts available under paragraphs (1) and (2)

13 for such purpose.

14 ‘‘(B) The authorization of appropriations established

15 in subparagraph (A) is not effective for a fiscal year unless

16 the total amount appropriated under paragraphs (1) and

17 (2) for the fiscal year is not less than such total for fiscal

18 year 2000.

19 ‘‘(C) The purposes for which amounts appropriated

20 under subparagraph (A) are available include the payment

21 of program expenses for the immunization program under

22 this subsection in order to ensure that influenza vaccines

23 purchased under this subsection are received by the

24 States, and distributed to qualifying health care providers

25 for the immunization of children, adolescents, and adults,
3

•HR 943 IH

1 in accordance with criteria of the Secretary for the oper2 ation of the immunization program under this subsection.

3 ‘‘(D) The Secretary shall submit reports to the Con4 gress describing the activities of the Secretary under this

5 subsection regarding influenza vaccine. Such reports may

6 include any recommendations of the Secretary for admin7 istrative or legislative actions to improve operations under

8 this subsection regarding such vaccine. The first such re9 port shall be submitted not later than February 1, 2002,

10 the second report shall be submitted not later than Feb11 ruary 1, 2003, and subsequent reports shall be submitted

12 biennially thereafter.

13 ‘‘(E) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘quali14 fying health care provider’ means—

15 ‘‘(i) a physician as defined in section 1861(r) of

16 the Social Security Act; and

17 ‘‘(ii) a provider of services under section

18 1861(u) of such Act.’’.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0855.html[7/21/2015 4:45:07 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-k5dz

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-0855

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Gary DeVeau

General Comment

My wife & I have spent our whole life working towards our retirement. A government bureaucrat should not get

 in the way of that. We want Pres. Obama & the DOL to NOT restrict our retirement options. Let our voice be

 heard, we are smart enough to plan for our own retirements!!!
§ 37.89 Remanufacture of intercity and commuter rail cars and purchase or lease of remanufactured intercity and commuter rail cars. ( a ) This section applies to Amtrak or a commuter authority which takes one of the following actions: ( 1 ) Remanufactures an intercity or commuter rail car so as to extend its useful life for ten years or more;
( 2 ) Purchases or leases an intercity or commuter rail car which has been remanufactured so as to extend its useful life for ten years or more.
( b ) Intercity and commuter rail cars listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
( c ) For purposes of this section, it shall be considered feasible to remanufacture an intercity or commuter rail car so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless an engineering analysis demonstrates that remanufacturing the car to be accessible would have a significant adverse effect on the structural integrity of the car.
From: Kaleen Councilor [mailto:kcouncilor@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 8:05 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210 - AB32

To Whom it Concerns,

The revised proposal allows for loopholes that benefit the advisor or investment companies not 

the investor. Those seeking financial advice should expect that any advice be in their best 

interest not anyone else's. I think this revision is misguided.

Sincerely,

Kelly Councilor
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 28, 2014

t0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148382

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148382

COA: 309431

Ingham CC: 10

- 001190

- FC

REBECCA HERNANDEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2013

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.