alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

CHARLES DENNIS BRITTON, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 56 WM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. While counsel did not demonstrate that the 

failure to file a timely Petition for Allowance of Appeal was the result of anything other 

than counsel’s negligence, Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed Petition for Allowance 

of Appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 122; Commonwealth v. Liebel, 825 A.2d 630 (Pa. 2003). 

Counsel is DIRECTED to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days of this 

order.
From: Ford, Brett [mailto:bjford@transamerica.com] 

Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 5:49 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: Ford, Brett

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

To Whom it may concern:

I want to comment on the proposed Fiduciary proposal by the Department of Labor. I have been in the 

Financial Services Industry working with financial advisors for the past 25 years. I have seen the good, 

the bad, and the ugly. However, the truth is that 95% of financial advisors wake up every day looking out 

for their clients and honestly work towards improving their prospects for wealth and retirement. I have 

seen numerous rules, regulations, compliance, etc aimed at ending the unethical behavior over the

years. Unfortunately, an insincere, incompetent and unethical person finds their way around the rules 

and regulations.

After carefully reading the proposal from the Department of Labor, I can see who this benefits- Those 

whose business model is fee only and don’t want competition and the cadre of attorney’s waiting to sue 

and capture the windfall. Who will be harmed? By a longshot it will be the individual consumer who 

doesn’t have a sizeable retirement account. A fee based arrangement does not make sense for most 

advisors unless you have $250k to $500k of investable assets. The majority of Americans have not saved 

anywhere near that. A fee of $1500 for a plan might make sense if I have $250,000... but not if I have 

$25,000. If I am an advisor it, is not worth the risk to touch a retirement account under this proposal.

A conflict of interest will ALWAYS exist in our business. It doesn’t mean that bad advice is given. What 

about an advisor who is paid on assets under management and the client is now retired and needs to 

start withdrawing money from that account? Wouldn’t the advisor have a conflict of interest in keeping 

the client to delay retirement, use other assets, etc to make sure that you are not reducing their 

paycheck? 

So, if your goal is to ELIMINATE ALL CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN LETS GO- ANY ATTORNEY WHO 

WANTS TO SUE AN ADVISOR CANNOT BE PAID AS IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AS THEIR OBJECTIVE IS 

TO GET PAID AND NOT ALWAYS TO DO THE RIGHT THING. AND LET’S ELIMINATE THE ABILITY FOR ANY 

GOVERNMENT OR REGULATORY BODY TO COLLECT ANY FEES OR SETTLEMENTS AS THAT IS A CONFLICT 

OF INTEREST AS WELL. DON’T BE A HYPOCRIT, FINISH THE JOB AND ELIMINATE EVERYONE FROM ANY 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

It’s unfortunate that this is a solution in search of another problem. First rule is do no harm- are retirees 

better off without advice and choice? More complex solutions will cost more. Not every client belongs in 

Vanguard. Clients should have the ability to choose- fee or commission. It’s their money. Government 

needs to stop picking who they want to win.

Sincerely,

Brett Ford
#### Henry A. Barnum, *Appellant, v.*Oscar Tomagno, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
1210-AB32-2-1281.html[7/24/2015 10:21:17 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvu-t004

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-1776

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Carl Pivonka

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan for my own retirement and would appreciate the government not taking away more of

 my rights and liberties as an American. Thanks.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in each Registration Statement
of CLARCOR Inc. on Form S-8 (file numbers 33-5456, 33-38590, 33-39374, 33-53763
and 33-53899) and on Form S-4 (registration number 333-19735) of our reports
dated January 3, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
CLARCOR Inc. and Subsidiaries as of November 30, 1996 and 1995 and for the years
ended November 30, 1996, 1995 and 1994, and the financial statement schedule for
the years ended November 30, 1996, 1995, and 1994, which reports are included or
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                         COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Chicago, Illinois
February 19, 1997
1210-AB32-2-1502.html[7/26/2015 6:22:18 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwk-gpy5

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-1998

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: john Anonymous

General Comment

I am smart enough to control my retirement fund
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors and
ShareholdersCoachmen Industries, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-52378) pertaining to the
Retirement Plan and Trust of Coachmen Industries, Inc., 2000 Omnibus Stock Incentive
Program and Supplemental Deferred Compensation Plan, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-59251) pertaining to the 1994 Omnibus Stock Incentive Program, Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 2-64572) pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Coachmen
Industries, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated March 4, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Coachmen Industries, Inc., and subsidiaries, Coachmen managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Coachmen Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Coachmen Industries, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

Grand Rapids, MIMarch 10,
2005

67
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE INTERIM
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,916
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,935
<PP&E>                                          40,332
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,855,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    35,977,266
<OTHER-SE>                                (37,734,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,289
<SALES>                                        168,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,960
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  538,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (911)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (474,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (474,392)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>LOSS PER SHARE ON A FULLY DILUTED BASIS IS NOT CALCULATED SINCE THE EFFECT
IS ANTIDILUTIVE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### William G. Jones, Appellant, v. Ward H. Wakefield, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 24.17

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Sue L. Gin do hereby appoint Frank M. Clark and Darryl M.
Bradford, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2006 of Commonwealth Edison Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.



/s/ John W. Rogers, Jr.John W. Rogers, Jr.


DATE: February 13, 2007
Indemnity Letter - Sir David Arculus



 Exhibit 4.41 
  

			
		  	Barclays Corporate Secretariat
		  	Level 29
		  	One Churchill Place
		  	London
		  	E14 5HP
	22 June 2005	  	
		
		  	Tel 020 7116 1000
	Sir David Arculus	  	Fax 020 7116 7665
	Chairman’s Office	  	
	O2 plc	  	
	Wellington Street	  	
	Slough	  	
	SL1 1YP	  	

 

 
 Dear Sir David 
 Indemnity contained in Articles of Association 
 This letter supplements and forms
part of the terms of your appointment. 
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Boards have confirmed that as a director of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC you
have the benefit of and are able to rely upon the indemnity contained in Article 160 of the Barclays PLC Articles of Association and the identical wording in Article 157 of the Barclays Bank PLC Articles of Association, the terms of which are hereby
expressly incorporated into your terms of your appointment. Copies of the relevant Articles are attached for your ease of reference. 
 The terms of this
letter are governed by English law and the parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts. 
 Yours
sincerely 
  

					
	 /s/ Lawrence Dickinson
	 		 	 /s/ Patrick Gonsalves

	Lawrence Dickinson	 		 	Patrick Gonsalves
	Company Secretary	 		 	Joint Secretary
	Barclays PLC	 		 	Barclays Bank PLC
			
	Countersigned by	 		 	
			
	 


	 		 	
	Director	 		 	

  
  
  
  
  
 Barclays PLC. Registered in England. Registered No: 48839. Registered Office: 1 Churchill Place, London E14 5HP
#### Charles E. Patterson, *Receiver, etc., Respondent, v.*Daniel Robinson and others, Appellants.—

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Boardman, J., not acting.
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–239 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT RESOLUTION (H.J. RES. 

68) MAKING CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND ADDRESSING A MOTION TO PROCEED UNDER 

SECTION 2908 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT 

ACT OF 1990 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 469] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 469, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 68, making 

continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006, and for other 

purposes, under a closed rule. The rule provides one hour of debate 

in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 

joint resolution. The rule provides one motion to recommit the joint 

resolution. 

The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order at any 

time on the legislative day of Thursday, October 6, 2005. The rule 

further provides that the Speaker or his designee shall consult with 

the Minority Leader or her designee on any suspension considered 

under the rule. 

Lastly, the rule provides that a motion to proceed pursuant to 

section 2908 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 

1990 shall be in order only if offered by the Majority Leader or his 

designee. 

2 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The Committee is not aware of any points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. The waiver of all points of order 

against consideration of the joint resolution is prophylactic in nature. 

Æ
#### In the Matter of the New York Elevated Railway Company.

Ordered, that the report of the Commissioners m this matter be sent back to such Commissioners with directions to make a further report setting forth what they have considered to be easements, l'o'r which they have allowed damages in and by their report, and what damages they have allowed and awarded for such easements respectively.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50114 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARNULFO ESCOBEDO-SOLTERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-1536-ALL-PM

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arnulfo Escobedo-Soltero appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Escobedo-Soltero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Escobedo-Soltero maintains that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-50114 -2- he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Escobedo-Soltero acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 390.42 What are the responsibilities of drivers and motor carriers operating intermodal equipment? ( a ) Before operating intermodal equipment over the road, the driver accepting the equipment must inspect the equipment components listed in § 392.7(b) of this subchapter and be satisfied they are in good working order.
( b ) A driver or motor carrier transporting intermodal equipment must report to the intermodal equipment provider, or its designated agent, any known damage, defects, or deficiencies in the intermodal equipment at the time the equipment is returned to the provider or the provider's designated agent. The report must include, at a minimum, the items in § 396.11(b)(1) of this chapter.
[73 FR 76822, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 34852, June 12, 2012; 77 FR 59828, Oct. 1, 2012; 80 FR 59074, Oct. 1, 2015]
§ 511.64 Petitions for settlement; timing, contents. ( a ) A petition seeking settlement under this subpart must be filed within 30 days after the issuance of a final order assessing a civil penalty for a violation of an average fuel economy standard.
( b ) ( 1 ) A petition for settlement should be sufficient to allow the Administrator to determine that at least one of the criteria set out in § 511.63 is satisfied, and that the public interest would be served by settlement.
( 2 ) A petition asserting that settlement is necessary to prevent bankruptcy or insolvency must include: ( i ) Copies of all pertinent financial records, auditor's reports, and documents that show that the imposition of a civil penalty would cause insolvency, or would cause a company to do an act of bankruptcy, and
( ii ) A payment schedule that would allow the petitioner to pay a civil penalty without resulting in insolvency or an act of bankruptcy.
( 3 ) A petition asserting that the violation of the average fuel economy standard was caused by an act of God, fire, or strike must describe corrective and ameliorative steps taken to mitigate the effects of the act of God, fire, or strike.
( 4 ) A petition based on a certification by the Federal Trade Commission that modification of the civil penalty assessed is necessary to prevent a substantial lessening of competition must include a certified copy of: ( i ) The application to the Federal Trade Commission for a certification under section 508(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 911 (15 U.S.C. 2008(b)(4)), and materials supporting the application.
( ii ) The administrative record of any Federal Trade Commission proceeding held in regard to the application, and
( iii ) The certification by the Federal Trade Commission.
( c ) It is the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that unconditional settlements of violations of average fuel economy standards are not in the public interest, and absent special and extraordinary circumstances, will not be allowed. All petitions for settlement shall contain a section proposing conditions for settlement. Conditions for settlement can be specific acts designed to lead to the reduction of automotive fuel consumption, which the petitioner is not otherwise required to perform pursuant to any statute, regulation, or administrative or judicial order, such as sponsoring public education programs, advertising, accelerating commercial application of technology, accelerating technology development programs, or making public the results of privately performed studies, surveys, or research activities.
lnventoryExpettService 

A divisioll of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 

Fax: 614-447-3747 

E-mail: answers@cas.org 

Web: www. cas. org/produ cts/ot her -cas-prod u cts/cl ic nt-services/ 

INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT 

IES Order Number: 

Registry Number: 

CA Index Name: 

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

CAS 

D If this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA. 

2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 Columbus, OH 43210-0334 USA
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Form 10-K/A of Tri-Valley Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, I, F. Lynn Blystone, Chief Executive Officer of Tri-Valley Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. **§** 1350 as adopted pursuant to **§** 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

|   | (1) | Such Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  Tri-Valley Corporation. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| Date:

 

  | April 1, 2009                                                          |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:                   | */s/F. Lynn Blystone***                                                |
|                  | F. Lynn Blystone, Chief Executive Officer CHOB

Tri-Valley Corporation |
### ERAMETMARIETTA COMPliANCEAND ENGINEERING EMISSION MEASUREMENTSUMMARY



### SAMPLING MATRIX Approximate Run Duration, Source TargetAnalyte Sampling Method No. ofTest Runs hrs. FCE 1 Main Baghouse Filterable PM EPA Methods 1-5- Compliance 3 1 HCI EPA Method 26 3 1 Formaldehyde EPA Method 316 1 1 PAHs Carb Method429 1 3

Hg EPA Method 30B 1 

### 8 I Mn EPA Method 29 {Combined with PM sampling) 3 1 FCE 1Taphole Baghouse Filterable PM EPA Methods 1-5- Compliance 

### 3 1 HCI EPA Method 26 3 1 Formaldehyde EPA Method316 1 1 PAHs Carb Method429 1 3

Hg EPA Method30B 1 

### 8 Mn EPA Method 29 (Combined with PM sampling) 3 1 FCE 12Scrubber Exhaust Filterable PM EPA Methods 1-5 -Compliance 3 1 HCI EPA Method 26A 3 1 Formaldehyde EPA Method316 1 1 PAHs Carb Method429 1 3

Hg EPA Method30B 1 

### 8 Mn EPA Method29 (Combined with PM sampling)

L___

- 

## "? 1

- - -------- - L_

- -
Emission Measurment Budget $67,750
H. Res. 164

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 12, 2001.

Resolved, That on the Committee on Science Mr.

Gilchrest shall rank after Mrs. Biggert.

Attest:

Clerk.