alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0604.html[7/21/2015 7:04:59 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-cdzp

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-0604

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I can take care of my retirement. I do not need the Federal Government control my retirement 401K. Do not

 restrict my use of my own hard earned money!
§ 380.711 Equipment. ( a ) All vehicles used in the behind-the-wheel training must comply with applicable Federal and State safety requirements.
( b ) Training vehicles must be in the same group and type that driver-trainees intend to operate for their CDL skills test.
#### The Rochester Flour City Savings and Aid Association, Respondent, v. Crescentia Gomo, Appellant, Impleaded, etc., Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barker, J.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.84 How long does the laboratory retain specimens after testing? ( a ) As a laboratory testing the primary specimen, you must retain a specimen that was reported with positive, adulterated, substituted, or invalid results for a minimum of one year.
( b ) You must keep such a specimen in secure, long-term, frozen storage in accordance with HHS requirements.
( c ) Within the one-year period, the MRO, the employee, the employer, or a DOT agency may request in writing that you retain a specimen for an additional period of time (*e.g.,* for the purpose of preserving evidence for litigation or a safety investigation). If you receive such a request, you must comply with it. If you do not receive such a request, you may discard the specimen at the end of the year.
( d ) If you have not sent the split specimen to another laboratory for testing, you must retain the split specimen for an employee's test for the same period of time that you retain the primary specimen and under the same storage conditions.
( e ) As the laboratory testing the split specimen, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section with respect to the split specimen.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000. Redesignated at 88 FR 27643, May 2, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating
Company on Form 10-K/A, as amended, for the year ending December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                                 /s/ H. Peter Burg
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     H. Peter Burg
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                   November 13, 2003

                                                 /s/ Richard H. Marsh
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     Richard H. Marsh
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                   November 13, 2003

                                       38
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 385.701 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this subpart:

*Compliance review* means a compliance review as defined in § 385.3 of this part.

*New entrant registration* means the provisional registration under subpart H of this part that FMCSA grants to a non-North America-domiciled motor carrier to provide interstate transportation within the United States. It will be revoked if the registrant is not assigned a Satisfactory safety rating following a compliance review conducted during the safety monitoring period established in this subpart.

*Non-North America-domiciled motor carrier* means a motor carrier of property or passengers whose principal place of business is located in a country other than the United States, Canada or Mexico.
#### § 392.15 Prohibited driving status.

No driver, who holds a commercial learner's permit or a commercial driver's license, shall operate a commercial motor vehicle if prohibited by § 382.501(a) of this subchapter.

[86 FR 55743, Oct. 7, 2021]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 5, 2019

No. 04-19-00101-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.A.F AND Z.R.F., CHILDREN,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00277

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notice of late record, requesting additional time to file the 

clerk’s record. We grant the request and order the trial court clerk, Mary Angie Garcia, to file the 

clerk’s record by March 8, 2019. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
1210-AB32-2-1121.html[7/24/2015 6:15:51 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-7dm1

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-1615

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Nate Clute

General Comment

Please leave my 401k alone. This is my hard earned money that I am trying to save for retirement. Social

 Security doesn't come near to replacing my income, and that is currently an unfunded liability for the

 government you won't let me opt out of. Don't mess with the only other option I have, my 401k.
Exhibit 32-4



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code



The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of Exelon Generation Company, LLC for the year ended
December 31, 2007, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Exelon Generation Company, LLC.



|                       |  |  |  |                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: February 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    MATTHEW F.
HILZINGER                 
|                       |  |  |  | Matthew F. Hilzinger Chief Financial Officer



445
1210-AB32-2-1601.html[7/26/2015 8:53:21 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxx-qnqu

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-2098

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: MY BUISINESS NOT YOURS

General Comment

Keep your damn nose out of mine and everyone else's 401Ks. You clowns have no business doing anything

 remotely like this.

All you clowns will do is put it in businesses that Obama wants you to put it in.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, October 30, 1995 (136), Para 136.9 Gloucester Federal Marine Laboratory Conveyance]
[Page 1800]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.136.9  gloucester federal marine laboratory conveyance

  Mr. TORKILDSEN moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 
1358) to require the Secretary of Commerce to convey the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts the National Marine Fisheries Service laboratory located 
on Emerson Avenue in Gloucester, Massachusetts; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, recognized Mr. TORKILDSEN and 
Mr. STUDDS, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill, as amended, was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the 
table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8023** 

HOLMAN B. HENLEY, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 01437

- LMB

- TCB )

Submitted : April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Holman B. Henley, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Holman B. Henley, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Hen ley’s motion for a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                         258,924
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  277,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               538,539
<PP&E>                                       3,085,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,949,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,632,451
<BONDS>                                              0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,272
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,949,375
<SALES>                                        872,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               879,247
<CGS>                                          259,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,266
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               818,252
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                315,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   317,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1520.html[7/23/2015 12:32:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-pl6s

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-1520

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Keep your hand out of my retirement!!!!!!!! Its not yours!!!!!! I worked for it!!!!
Docket Number FAA - 2014 - 0394

Directorate ID 2014 - SW - 015 - AD **Economic Evaluation** We estimate that this AD will affect 118 helicopters of U.S. Registry . We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, repairing the hoist damper unit will require 5 workhours, and required parts will cost $4, for a cost per helicopter of $429. Replacing the hoist damper unit will require 1 work- hour, and required parts will cost $8,715, for a cost per helicopter of $8,800. Deactivating the rescue hoist will require .5 work - hour, for a cost per helicopter of $43.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Henry WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12300.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1958.

Alvin A. Turner, Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Robert Tieken, U. S. Atty., Charles R. Purcell, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chicago, 111., of counsel, for ap-pellee.

Before FINNEGAN, SCHNACKEN-BERG and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges.

PARKINSON, Circuit Judge.

The defendant was charged in a four count indictment with violation of the narcotic laws. Count One charged him with a sale of narcotics on June 6, 1957 in violation of Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 4705 (a); Count Two with a violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 on the same date; Counts Three and Four alleged similar violations on July 81, 1957.

A bench trial was had and the court found the defendant guilty and pronounced a general sentence of five years imprisonment.

The defendant has appealed upon the sole ground that the trial court erred in admitting over his objection certain evidence offered by the Government. This evidence consisted of “what was taken from him by force in that he was subjected to ultra violet ray lights while handcuffed at his apartment and while under arrest by the federal police offi*143cers” on July 31, 1957. This testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with the offenses charged in Counts One and Two of the indictment and the defendant has in no manner challenged, on this appeal, the judgment of conviction on either of these two counts.

The penalty on conviction of a first offender for a violation of Title 26 U.S. C.A. § 4705(a), as charged in Count One, is a maximum of twenty years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine with a minimum of five years. The statute makes such minimum sentence mandatory and prohibits a suspension of the sentence, probation or parole.

The law is well settled that in federal courts a general sentence on a conviction under an indictment in several counts will be upheld if the penalty imposed does not exceed that prescribed for any one count, if that count be good and warrants the judgment and the evidence sufficiently sustains the conviction thereon. Claassen v. United States, 1891, 142 U.S. 140, 146-147, 12 S.Ct. 169, 35 L.Ed. 966; Abrams v. United States, 1919, 250 U.S. 616, 619, 40 S.Ct. 17, 63 L.Ed. 1173; Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774; United States v. Karavias, 7 Cir., 1948,170 F.2d 968, 971; United States v. Cioffi, 2 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 494, 496.

The defendant does not question Count One of the indictment, the admissibility of any evidence in support thereof nor the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction thereunder. In fact the record discloses that Count One is good, that the material evidence introduced in support thereof was admitted without objection and is clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction thereon. Thus any consideration of the competency of the evidence concerning the events of July 31, 1957 is obviated.

Judgment affirmed.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 6

- 00 311

- C R



### ____________________

TRAVIS OLIVER

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 21,877

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 13 , 20 16 , the trial co urt sentenced Travis Oliver on a conviction for

sexual assault of a child

. Oliver filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2016 . The

trial court signed a certification in which the court certified that this is a plea

bargain case and the defendant has no right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial court’s certification to the Court

of Appeals. On September 6, 2016 , we notified the parties that we would dismiss

the appeal unless the appellant established grounds for continuing the appeal. No2 response has been filed. Because the trial court’s certification shows the defendant

does not have the right of appeal, we mus t dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on October 4, 2016

Opinion Delivered October 5, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1210-AB32-2-1266.html[7/24/2015 9:58:09 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvu-9tdx

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-1761

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jason Brown

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan my own retirement so leave my 401 alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 28, 1995 (122), Para 122.14 Three-Judge Court Review for State Referenda]
[Page 1462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.122.14  three-judge court review for state referenda

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. RIGGS, pursuant to House Resolution 227 
and rule XXIII, declared the House resolved into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1170) to provide that cases challenging the 
constitutionality of measures passed by State referendum be heard by a 
3-judge court.
  Mr. EWING, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, resumed the chair.
```