alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Sarah Prinsloo [mailto:sarahprinsloo@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:03 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Proposed rulings of the Parity Act

I am a Marriage and Family Therapist who provides neurofeedback treatment to 

individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. 

Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective nonmedication 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 evidencebased 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. 

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter, 

 

Sarah Prinsloo, Ph.D 

713-866-6296
IV

House Calendar No. 33

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 147

[Report No. 107–76]

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 23, 2001

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

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported

from the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider reports from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day they are presented

4 to the House is waived with respect to resolutions reported

5 on the legislative day of May 24, 2001, providing for con6 sideration or disposition of any measure to provide for rec7 onciliation pursuant to section 104 of the concurrent reso-
2

HRES 147 RH

1 lution on the budget for fiscal year 2002, any amendment

2 thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment

3 reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

House Calendar No. 33

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 147

[Report No. 107–76]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

MAY 23, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/5/15 11:09 AM

Received: June 02, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8j77-lv0u

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-0302

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Gillette

Address: 

5182 Katella Ave., Ste. 101

Los Alamitos, CA, 90720

Email: rgillette@jpturner.com

Phone: 562.598.6200

General Comment

Re: RIN 1210-AB32

I am requesting that the comment period be extended further, to 120 days. the current 90 day 

period is still too short a time to adequately prepare constructive comments. We need sufficient 

time to analyze how the rule will impact our clients, advisors, and our business practices, 

especially within the IRA sphere.

We want to ensure that we are able to provide DOL with "thoughtful constructive commentary" 

that will be helpful in their review of the proposal. Because of the length of the proposal, 

neither of the above objectives can be adequately accomplished within the 90 day comment 

period that is currently attached to the proposal.

J.P. Turner & Company, LLC

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b168ae&format=xml&showo... 6/5/2015
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-139

_____________________________

JEROME ROBERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

April 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The amended petition for belated appeal is denied on the 

merits.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jerome Roberson, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 385.717 Applicability of safety fitness and enforcement procedures.

At all times during which a non-North America-domiciled motor carrier is subject to the safety monitoring system in this subpart, it is also subject to the general safety fitness procedures established in subpart A of this part and to compliance and enforcement procedures applicable to all carriers regulated by the FMCSA.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1213.html[7/22/2015 3:57:29 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-e6jh

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-1213

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Dave Myers II

General Comment

I am smart enough and capable enough to plan for my own retirement. In fact, I have already started. I do not

 need the help of people whom I, in part, elect and who will not be in that position long. You have a job, and it is

 NOT to "help" me live my life. I got this!
1210-AB32-2-1203.html[7/24/2015 8:19:23 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvs-q8fw

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-1697

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Matt Garni

General Comment

Please, no more regulations!

The price for true liberty is that We the People, can make our own decisions!

MG
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*George T. Burling, Appellant, *v.*Harrison Hunt and others, Commissioners, *Respondents.*

— Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
§ 375.221 May I use a charge or credit card plan for payments? ( a ) You may provide in your tariff for the acceptance of charge or credit cards for the payment of freight charges. Accepting charge or credit card payments is different than extending credit to shippers in §§ 375.219 and 375.807. Once you provide an estimate you are bound by the provisions in your tariff regarding payment as of the estimate date, until completion of any transaction that results from that estimate, unless otherwise agreed with a shipper under § 375.217(a).
( b ) You may accept charge or credit cards whenever shipments are transported under agreements and tariffs requiring payment by cash, certified check, money order, or a cashier's check.
( c ) If you allow an individual shipper to pay an invoice by charge or credit card, you are deeming such payment to be the same as payment by cash, certified check, money order, or a cashier's check.
( d ) The charge or credit card plans you participate in must be identified in your tariff rules as items permitting the acceptance of the charge or credit cards.
( e ) If an individual shipper causes a charge or credit card issuer to reverse a charge transaction, you may consider the individual shipper's action tantamount to forcing you to provide an involuntary extension of your credit. In such instances, the rules in § 375.807 apply.
[68 FR 35091, June 11, 2003, as amended at 87 FR 24447, Apr. 26, 2022]
----

  CLECO CORPORATION                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     EXHIBIT21

  Subsidiaries of the Registrant asof December 31, 2004

|  | SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT OR ORGANIZATION                                | STATE OF INCORPORATION |  |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--|
|  |        Acadia  Partners Pipeline LLC        | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Acadia  Power Holdings LLC           | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Acadia  Power Partners LLC           | Delaware               |  |
|  |        CLE  Intrastate Pipeline Company LLC | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        CLE  Resources, Inc.                 | Delaware               |  |
|  |        Cleco  ConnexUs LLC                  | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Energy LLC                    | Texas                  |  |
|  |        Cleco  Evangeline LLC                | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Generation Services LLC       | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Innovations LLC               | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Marketing & Trading LLC   | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Midstream Resources LLC       | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Power LLC                     | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Cleco  Support Group LLC             | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        DeSoto  Pipeline Company, Inc.       | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Diversified  Lands LLC               | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Four  Square Production, LLC         | Texas                  |  |
|  |        Perryville  Energy Holdings LLC      | Louisiana              |  |
|  |        Perryville  Energy Partners, L.L.C.  | Delaware               |  |
|  |        STUCO  Innovations, Inc.             | Alabama                |  |
|  |        UTS,  LLC                            | Louisiana              |  |

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 385.315 Where will the safety audit be conducted?

The safety audit will generally be conducted at the new entrant's business premises.
From: Nathaniel Hummel [mailto:nathanielhummel@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:49 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I object to your limiting and/or not allowing commissions for annuity products, because:

1.) You don't work for free and Advisors and Insurance Agents shouldn't be asked to forgo their 

livelihood when serving clients.

2.) Respectable agents will sell annuities that balance Annuity Quality and Commissions 

structures that serve both the client and adequately compensate agents and advisors for their 

expertise and service to the client.

3.) You wouldn't/shouldn't expect attorneys or CPA's to work for free and well trained advisors 

shouldn't be any different.

Respectfully,

Nathaniel Hummel, ChFC, CLU

 Money & Tax Strategies

 Nathaniel Hummel, ChFC, CLU

 3747 Vista Campana S Ste 16

 Oceanside, CA 92057

 

 Office: 760-529-5528 -- Fax: 760-730-5564

"Time is that convention of nature which prevents everything from happening all 

at once. Regrettably, it hasn't been working as well lately as it used to." 

And now a few words from our legal friends:

This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s). Any information contained in this email is confidential and may 

contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 

distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the 

sender and destroy all copies of the original message. It would also help if you 

totally forgot you ever received it. Failure to comply with this request may subject 

you to assimilation by the Borg (arcane Star Trek reference).
#### § 29.512 Must a Tribe make its records available to the Department?

After 30 days advance written notice from the Department, a Tribe must provide the Department with reasonable access to such records to enable the Department to meet its minimum legal recordkeeping system and audit requirements.
2006 Incentive Compensation Program for William G. Cornely


 Exhibit 10.3 
 Dominion Homes, Inc. 
 2006 Incentive Compensation Program 
 William G. Cornely, Senior Vice President of Finance and CFO 
 Net Income (40% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	    Award    
	 Target
	  	$	30,000
	 Stretch
	  	$	75,000
	 Exceptional
	  	$	125,000

 Corporate Debt Management (40% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	    Award    
	 100% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	30,000
	 133% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	75,000
	 166% of Target Debt Reduction
	  	$	125,000

 Customer Satisfaction (20% of Total) 
  

				
	 Goal
	  	    Award    
	 94%
	  	$	15,000
	 95%
	  	$	37,500
	 96%
	  	$	62,500

 Mr. Cornely will be entitled to receive a guaranteed minimum bonus for 2006
of $100,000.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 2, 2008*

Decided October 3, 2008

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

     ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐1063

DAMON A. MYERS,

           Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

MELISSA ANN GAGEN,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:07‐cv‐1589‐JDT‐TAB

John Daniel Tinder,

Judge.

O R D E R

Damon Myers is an Indiana inmate who was convicted of child molesting.   

Claiming that Melissa Gagen, the prosecutor who tried the case against him, committed

misconduct amounting to a constitutional violation, Myers brought a civil‐rights complaint

against her under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐1063 Page 2

§ 1915A, and dismissed it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The

district court read the complaint to allege that Gagen represented Myers, but the court’s

confusion is understandable.  In his complaint Myers identifies Gagen only as an “attorney

at law” and refers to her as “Attorney Gagen.”  The court dismissed based on the rule that a

defense lawyer, even if paid by the state, does not act under color of state law unless she

conspires with state officials to violate the rights of another.  See Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S.

914, 923 (1984); Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

On appeal Myers has clarified that Gagen’s role was that of prosecutor and not

defense counsel, but the clarification does not help his cause.  Although prosecutors act

under color of state law, they are absolutely immune from suits under § 1983 challenging

conduct that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976); see also Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 466 (7th

Cir. 2007).  Because Myers’s suit challenges Gagen’s conduct at trial—undoubtedly part of

the judicial phase of the criminal process—the dismissal of Myers’s suit is

AFFIRMED.
§ 240.213 Procedures for making the determination on completion of training program. ( a ) Each railroad, prior to the initial issuance of a certificate to any person as a train or locomotive service engineer, shall determine that the person has, in accordance with the requirements of § 240.123 of this part, the knowledge and skills to safely operate a locomotive or train in the most demanding class or type of service that the person will be permitted to perform.
( b ) In making this determination, a railroad shall have written documentation showing that: ( 1 ) The person completed a training program that complies with § 240.123 of this part;
( 2 ) The person demonstrated his or her knowledge and skills by achieving a passing grade under the testing and evaluation procedures of that training program; and
( 3 ) A qualified Designated Supervisor of Locomotive Engineers has determined that the person is familiar with the physical characteristics of the railroad or its pertinent segments.
[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 60992, Nov. 8, 1999; 74 FR 68184, Dec. 23, 2009]
###### Editorial Note on Part 386

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

#### § 386.15 [Reserved]
H. Res. 223

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

August 2, 2001.

Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House of

Representatives is authorized and directed, on behalf of the

House of Representatives, to deliver the mace of the House

of Representatives, following an adjournment of the House

pursuant to concurrent resolution, to the Smithsonian Institution only for the purpose of having necessary repairs made

to the mace and under such circumstances as will assure that

the mace is properly safeguarded: Provided, however, That

the mace shall be returned to the House of Representatives

before noon on the day before the House next reconvenes

pursuant to concurrent resolution or at any sooner time when

so directed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Clerk.
t>ar-o&r'\^%-Y\l^ 

City Minsgfr 

JOE C. THOMAS 

City Attorney 

DAVID F RICHARDS 

Post Office Box 760 

Clovis, New Mexico 

88101-0760 

Phone (573) 769-7828 

CLOVIS CITY COMMISSION 

.Major 

GAYIJ\ HRUMFIHLO 

Miiyor Pro-Tem 

I.EN VOUS 

Commbsionrn 

U}R1S BRYANT 

OANiELJ STODDARD 

MDKL MADRID 

JUAN F. GARZA 

ROBERT SANDOVAL 

FRED VAN SOULEN 

RANDALL S CROWDER 

February 18,2011 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Essenrial Air Service Division, X-53 

Room 6401 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

UJ 

r^: 

Re: Recommendation Docket OST# 1996-1902 for EAS funding - Clovis, New Mexico 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

The Clovis City Commission at its regular meeting of February 17*, reviewed the 

recommendation from the Civil Aviation Board on proposals and formal presentations made 

by both Great Lakes and SeaPoit airlines. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend 

Great Lakes Airlines to continue service to Clovis. 

Please accept this letter on behalf of the City of Clovis as a reconmiendation for Great Lakes 

Airlines under DOT- OST-I996-I902. 

GaylaB 

Mayor 

Cc: Mr. Brian Swanson, USDOT EAS 

Mr. Chuck Howell, Great Lakes Airlines 

Mr, Rob McKinney, SeaPort Airlines
§ 390.46 Are State and local laws and regulations on the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment preempted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations? ( a ) *General.* As provided by 49 U.S.C. 31151(d), a law, regulation, order, or other requirement of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or a tribal organization relating to the inspection, repair, and maintenance of intermodal equipment is preempted if such law, regulation, order, or other requirement exceeds or is inconsistent with a requirement imposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
( b ) *Pre-existing State requirements* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31151(e)(1), unless otherwise provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a State requirement for the periodic inspection of intermodal chassis by intermodal equipment providers that was in effect on January 1, 2005, shall remain in effect only until June 17, 2009.
( 2 ) *Nonpreemption determinations* — ( i ) *In general.* Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31151(e)(2), and notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a State requirement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not preempted if the Administrator determines that the State requirement is as effective as the FMCSA final rule and does not unduly burden interstate commerce.
( ii ) *Application required.* Paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section applies to a State requirement only if the State applies to the Administrator for a determination with respect to the requirement before the effective date of the final rule (June 17, 2009). The Administrator will make a determination with respect to any such application within 6 months after the date on which the Administrator receives the application.
( iii ) *Amended State requirements.* If a State amends a regulation for which it previously received a nonpreemption determination from the Administrator under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, it must apply for a determination of nonpreemption for the amended regulation. Any amendment to a State requirement not preempted under this subsection because of a determination by the Administrator may not take effect unless it is submitted to the Agency before the effective date of the amendment, and the Administrator determines that the amendment would not cause the State requirement to be less effective than the FMCSA final rule on “Requirements for Intermodal Equipment Providers and Motor Carriers and Drivers Operating Intermodal Equipment” and would not unduly burden interstate commerce.