alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0974.html[7/21/2015 7:10:55 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-5z6c

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-0974

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I do not need or want the government to tell me or take over my retirement plan(s). I contend that it is an

 unalienable right to manage my retirement monies as I see fit. It is a personal private process and in no way do I

 need the governments help or involvement.

Please do not allow this to be written into law. We, the people, already have enough of the government pushing

 their way into areas of our private life where they are not wanted.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 237 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 237

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortions except where the 
                life of the mother would be endangered.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Emerson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortions except where the 
                life of the mother would be endangered.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress finds that--
            (1) scientific evidence demonstrates that abortion takes 
        the life of an unborn child who is a living human being;
            (2) a right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution 
        of the United States; and
            (3) in Roe versus Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe versus Bolton 
        (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court erred in not recognizing the 
        humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the 
        several States to protect the life of each person before birth.
    Sec. 2. No funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to perform 
abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if 
the fetus were carried to term.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

C. LEVAN; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15157

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01838-GEBKJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Luis Lorenzo Armentero, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his

rights to due process and equal protection. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Ballen v. City

FILED

JAN 11 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15157

of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 741 (9th Cir. 2006), and for an abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to amend or alter the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.

1993). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Armentero

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants caused

the alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights based on his racial classification. 

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another

of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Armentero’s

motion to amend or alter the judgment. See Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R.,

338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration

under Rule 59(e)).

Armentero’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of APPLIED SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, (the
"Report"), I, Kevin R. Keating, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1)    The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.


Date: February 13, 2006                      By: /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Kevin R. Keating, President
exv10w15



 





Exhibit 10.15




Description of the Reinsurance Agreement for 2006 between ACIC, BCIC and

GE Reinsurance Corporation and Max Re Ltd. effective January 1, 2006




The Company, on behalf of its subsidiaries American Compensation Insurance Company (ACIC) and
Bloomington Compensation Insurance Company (BCIC), entered into reinsurance contracts for the
fiscal year beginning January 1, 2006. The following summarizes the significant terms of these
reinsurance agreements.



LIABILITY OF THE REINSURER



The Reinsurers shall pay to ACIC and BCIC, with respect to Workers’ Compensation and Employers’
Liability Business, the amount of Net Loss for each Occurrence, as defined in the contracts, in
excess of the Company’s retention, but not exceeding the Limits of Liability of the Reinsurer as
follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Loss Layer	 	Reinsurer	 	Comment
	$800,000 excess of $200,000

	 	50.0% GE Reinsurance Corporation
50.0% Max Re Ltd.
	 	*
	 
	 	 	 	 
	$4,000,000 excess $1,000,000

	 	100.0% GE Reinsurance Corporation
	 	*







			
	*	 	All business written by the Company.

Recoveries from the MN WCRA will inure to the benefit of this treaty





COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION



The agreement shall apply to new and renewal policies of ACIC and BCIC becoming effective at and
after 12:01 A.M., January 1, 2006, and to policies in force at 12:01 A.M., January 1, 2006, with
respect to losses resulting from Occurrences taking place at or after the aforesaid time and date.



The contracts are for one year and automatically expire at 12:01 A.M. on January 1, 2007. The
Reinsurers may also terminate the contracts in the event of significant adverse events at ACIC or
BCIC or in the event of a change in control of ACIC, BCIC or RTW, Inc.



REINSURANCE PREMIUM



ACIC and BCIC agreed to pay the Reinsurer based on subject premiums earned for each Loss Layer as
shown above. These rates are similar to the rates that we paid in 2005.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Gardner A. Sage, jr., agt. Jacob K. Lockman, executor, &c., and others.

*Oon/e&t'sion—discretionary power to sell read estate—Descent,*

A mere discretionary power to sell real estate does not create a conversion. Upon the death of the *cestui que*trust, the estate descends directly to the

persons entitled, and the power of sale, as to such share, ceases. ‘

*Special*Term, *May,*1877.

Van Brunt, *J.*

It seems to me very clear that the power of sale given by the testator to his executors by the seventeenth clause of his will, was merely discretionary. The devise and bequest is of the residue of the testator’s real and personal property to his executors, in trust, to sell and dispose of any portion or portions thereof, at public or private sale, at their discretion, &c. If there was nothing but this clause to indicate the intentions of the testator, the intention to give the executors a discretionary power of sale would be sufficiently apparent, as the executors are to sell any portion or portions of the estate at their discretion.

But, as if to remove all doubt as to such intention, the testator, by the seventh subdivision of the seventeenth clause, provides that the executors shall divide all the rest, residue and remainder of his estate, real and personal, into equal shares, &e. How, if the testator had supposed that the previous authorization to sell was obligatory upon the executors he certainly would not have contemplated a violation of that direction by them and spoken of a division of his real estate *277as above mentioned. But this language would be entirely consistent with the idea that the executors were to have a discretionary power to sell. It is well settled in this state that a mere discretionary power to sell real estate does not create a conversion *(White et al.*agt. *Howard,*46 *N. Y.,*144).

The ease of *Bruner*agt. *Meigs,*decided by me at the special term and affirmed in the court of appeals (64 *N. Y.,*506), expressly decides that upon the death of the *cestuis gue trust*the estate descended directly to the persons entitled, and that the power of sale, as to such share, ceased.

This case appears to be decisive of the only remaining question in this case, and to establish the proposition that upon the death of Frances Sage, her interest or share in the testator’s estate descended directly to her children, released from the power of sale contained in the will.

The demurrer must therefore be overruled, with leave for the defendants to answer upon usual terms.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 859

To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to reduce the down

payment required by a first-time homebuyer purchasing a home with

a mortgage insured under such section.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 2001

Mr. LAFALCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 203 of the National Housing Act to reduce

the down payment required by a first-time homebuyer

purchasing a home with a mortgage insured under such

section.

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 ‘‘FHA First-Time

5 Homebuyer Act’’.
2

•HR 859 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCED DOWNPAYMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR

2 FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(b)(10) of the Na4 tional Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)) is amended—

5 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub6 paragraph (C); and

7 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the fol8 lowing new subparagraph:

9 ‘‘(B) REDUCED CLOSING COSTS FOR

10 FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS.—In the case of any

11 mortgage for which the mortgagor is a first12 time homebuyer who has completed a coun13 seling program described in subsection

14 (c)(2)(A), the amount of the mortgage premium

15 paid at the time the mortgage is insured shall

16 be considered to be, for purposes of subpara17 graph (A)(i), the maximum premium amount

18 authorized to be established under the first sen19 tence of subparagraph (A) of subsection

20 (c)(2).’’.

Æ
#### Abraham Lott, *as Committee, etc., v.*Henry Hedeman.

— Order-affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1353.html[7/23/2015 6:18:03 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvj-q99v

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-1353

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave our Money (401K/403B's) Alone.

IT'S NOT YOURS!!!!
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

June 30, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00236

- CR

Troy CURTIS

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009CR0800A Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On June 25, 2014, we ordered Appellant to provide written proof to this court by July 7,
2014 that eit her court reporter Mary Beth Simpkins’s fee had been paid or that Appellant was entitled to appeal without paying for the record. On June 26, 2014, Appellant filed a response with this court. Appellant explained that he did not request a record be made b y any other court reporter than Erminia Uviedo, the reporter responsible for the probation revocation hearing held on March 31, 2014. Appellant further explained that Ms. Uviedo’s record, filed on June 10, 2014, was the record of the only matter being rai sed on appeal.

Our June 25, 2014 show cause order is satisfied. Appellant’s brief is due to be filed no later than July 10, 2014.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 30th day of June, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Cl erk of Court
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L UI S L OR E NZ O A R ME NT E R O, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C . L E V A N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 15157 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 8 3 8 - G EBK JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ui s L or e nz o A rm e nt e r o, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g v io la tio n s o f h is r ig h ts to du e p r o c e s s a n de q u a l p r o te c tio n . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, B a lle n v . C ity 

# FI LED JAN 11 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 15157 2 of R e dm ond , 466 F . 3d 736, 741 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , a nd f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the d e n ia l o f am o tio n to a m e n do ra lte rth e ju d g m e n t u n d e rF e d . R . C iv . P . 5 9 ( e ) , Sc h. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah Cnt

y. , O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F . 3d12 55 , 12 62 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause A rm ent er o fa i l ed t o rai se a genui ne di sput e of m at er i alfa ctas t o w hether defe nd ant s c ause d th e a lle g e dd e p r iv a tio n o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b a s e do n h is r a c ia l c la s s if ic a tio n . Se e L e e rv . Mur

phy , 84 4 F . 2d 62 8, 63 3 (9th C i r. 19 88 ) ( “ A pers on depri ves ano ther of a c on st i tut i on alri gh t , w i thi n the m eani ng of se ct i on 19 83 , i f he does an af fi rm at i ve ac t , part i cipat es i n ano ther’ s a ff i rm at i ve ac t s, or om i t s t o p er form an ac t w h ic h h e is le g a llyr e q u ir e dto d o th a t causes the depri vat i on of w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff com pl ai ns. ” ( ci t at i on , i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks, and b ra cket s om i tt ed)) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g A rm en tero ’s m o tio n to a m e n do ra lte rth e ju d g m e n t. Se e Tu rn e rv . Bu r l i n g to n N. Sa n ta Fe R. R. , 338 F . 3d 1058, 1063 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( s e tt i ng f orth gr ounds f

orr e c ons i de r a t i on un der Rul e 59(e)) . A rm ent er o’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
§ 238.441 Emergency roof access. ( a ) *Existing passenger cars and power cars.* Each passenger car and power car ordered prior to April 1, 2009 and placed in service for the first time prior to April 1, 2011, shall have a minimum of one roof hatch emergency access location with a minimum opening of 26 inches by 24 inches, or at least one structural weak point in the roof providing a minimum opening of the same dimensions, to provide access for properly equipped emergency response personnel. Each emergency roof access location shall be conspicuously marked, and legible and understandable operating instructions shall be posted at or near each such location. On or after January 28, 2015, such markings shall also conform with the requirements specified in § 238.125.
( b ) *New passenger cars.* Each passenger car ordered on or after April 1, 2009 or placed in service for the first time on or after April 1, 2011, shall comply with the emergency roof access requirements specified in § 238.123.
( c ) *New power cars.* Each power car ordered on or after April 1, 2009, or placed in service for the first time on or after April 1, 2011, shall have a minimum of one emergency roof access location, with a minimum opening of 26 inches longitudinally by 24 inches laterally, and comply with the emergency roof access requirements specified in §§ 238.123(b), (d), and (e).
[73 FR 6412, Feb. 1, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 71815, Nov. 29, 2013]
1210-AB32-2-1081.html[7/24/2015 5:34:36 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-7791

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-1575

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Maryann Faulkingham

Address:

2 Everygreen

North Reading, MA, 01864

Email: mfgbrier@aol.com

Phone: 9786640265

General Comment

I am an American and want to live as the Founder's interpreted our liberty and freedom. I do not want the state

 interfering with my affairs. 

I believe that this type of socialism is killing our country and introducing recycled ideology that has never been

 successful. Human nature has not changed in thousands of years, no matter how you want to market

 progressiveness. We will always be doing things the same way, because people cannot stand others being free to

 do as they wish to be happy. There will always be people who are not happy unless they are controlling

 something and controlling people. 

Leave our system of liberty alone. We can take care of ourselves without the intervention of the federal

 government. 

Let us handle our own affairs, and teach children how to be adults, rather than how to be subservient and

 dependent on government. We will eventually go under with this type of strategy for living.
. ‘

- >- . . . ,I. ___ 2 i . 

. - . . . . .- _; -.... 

.! ::+ 

. . 

5 

. 

OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYOENERALOFTEXAZk 

. AUSTIN 

. . 
. . 

__. sable L. A. Wads, +tih 25, 1399, PGe 2 . 

. , 

.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0929.html[7/21/2015 6:24:48 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-z4u2

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-0929

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Chad Carson

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone.
#### § 33.1 Purpose of this part.

This part provides guidance and procedures for use of the Defense Production Act priorities and allocations authority with respect to all forms of civil transportation. The guidance and procedures in this part are generally consistent with the guidance and procedures provided in other regulations issued under EO 13603 authority.