alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.293 What is the SAP's function in conducting the initial evaluation of an employee? As a SAP, for every employee who comes to you following a DOT drug and alcohol regulation violation, you must accomplish the following: ( a ) Provide a comprehensive assessment and clinical evaluation meeting the requirements of § 40.291(a)(1).
( b ) Recommend a course of education and/or treatment with which the employee must demonstrate successful compliance prior to returning to DOT safety-sensitive duty. ( 1 ) You must make such a recommendation for every individual who has violated a DOT drug and alcohol regulation.
( 2 ) You must make a recommendation for education and/or treatment that will, to the greatest extent possible, protect public safety in the event that the employee returns to the performance of safety-sensitive functions.
( c ) Appropriate education may include, but is not limited to, self-help groups (*e.g.,* Alcoholics Anonymous) and community lectures, where attendance can be independently verified, and bona fide drug and alcohol education courses.
( d ) Appropriate treatment may include, but is not limited to, in-patient hospitalization, partial in-patient treatment, out-patient counseling programs, and aftercare.
( e ) You must assess and clinically evaluate each employee on an individual basis and use your professional judgment to determine education and/or treatment, as well as a follow-up testing plan unique to the needs of the individual employee. For example, do not require the same and/or substantially similar education, treatment, and/or follow-up testing plan for most of the employees you assess.
( f ) You must provide a written report directly to the DER highlighting your specific recommendations for assistance (see § 40.311(c)).
( g ) For purposes of your role in the evaluation process, you must assume that a verified positive test result has conclusively established that the employee committed a DOT drug and alcohol regulation violation. You must not take into consideration in any way, as a factor in determining what your recommendation will be, any of the following: ( 1 ) A claim by the employee that the test was unjustified or inaccurate;
( 2 ) Statements by the employee that attempt to mitigate the seriousness of a violation of a DOT drug or alcohol regulation (*e.g.,* related to assertions of use of hemp oil, “medical marijuana” use, “contact positives,” poppy seed ingestion, job stress); or
( 3 ) Personal opinions you may have about the justification or rationale for drug and alcohol testing.
( h ) In the course of gathering information for purposes of your evaluation in the case of a drug-related violation, you may consult with the MRO. As the MRO, you are required to cooperate with the SAP and provide available information the SAP requests. It is not necessary to obtain the consent of the employee to provide this information.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 27650, May 2, 2023]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1508.html[7/23/2015 12:25:43 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-8q2r

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-1508

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am well qualified to plan my own retirement and definitely don't need ANY help from government.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEWIS P. WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3769

[March 1, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 97-15927CF10A.

Lewis P. Williams, Clermont, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. JOHN B. GALE and Others, *v.*THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY.

■Certiorafi — *audits of a board of supervisors, eannot be reviewed after the roll has been signed and the tax warrants delivered.*

In December, 1883, tbe board of supervisors of Rensselaer county audited and allowed a bill presented to it and thereafter, after signing tbe tax-bools and warrants for tbe collection of the taxes, adjourned *sine die.*On April seventh, tbe relators, upon an affidavit charging that tbe board bad no jurisdiction to audit tbe claim, and that tbe county treasurer threatened to pay it, obtained a writ of *eerUora/ri*requiring tbe board to make a return of all their proceedings:

Held, that the writ should be quashed, as tbe board bad no power over tbe matter after the roll bad been signed and tbe warrant delivered.

*People ex rel. Weekes*v. *Supervisors of Queens County*(83 N. Y., 375) followed.

Certiorari to review the action of the board of supervisors of the county of Rensselaer, in auditing and allowing the claims of a deputy sheriff for services rendered by him in traveling to execute criminal processes in criminal cases.

*Charles E.*Patterson, for the relators.

*B.*C. *Strait*and *P. E. Andrews,*for the respondent.

*267By the Court :

The board met November 13, 1883. On December 12,1883, a report was made upon a certain bill and vouchers of one Ahern, and the report was duly adopted the next day. Tbe supervisors signed the tax book and warrants for the collection of the taxes, and afterwards adjourned' *sine fie*December 15, 1883.-

On the 7th of April, 1884, the relators, .on an affidavit charging that this bill of Ahern’s was erroneous and illegal, and that the board had no jurisdiction to allow such a claim, and that there was no proof to sustain it, and that the county treasurer threatened to pay the bill, obtained a certiorari, directed to the board, requiring them to return their proceedings and all the evidence. That *certiorari*•and the return comes on to be heard.

The respondents insist that the writ should be quashed on the ground that prior to its issue the board had issued its warrants; that the money had been collected and was at the time in the hands of the county treasurer. It seems to us that thé case of *People ex rel. Weekes*v. *Supervisors of Queens County*(82 N. Y., 275) is conclusive on this point. *We*see no difference between that case and the present, and it follows that the writ must be quashed.

The writ should be quashed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements

Present — Learned, P. J., Bockes and Landon, JJ.

Writ quashed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements.
-----Original Message-----

From: M K [mailto:kingmarty222@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 3:31 PM

Subject: Department of Labor proposed fiduciary rule

Secretary Perez,

As an employee of New York Life, I am writing to express my opposition to the Department of Labor's 

proposed fiduciary rule that would, in effect, limit the advice our financial advisors can provide to 

retirement savers.

Martin King
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1138.html[7/22/2015 2:29:58 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-f1rz

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-1138

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Please don't enact regulations that would restrict how I use my own money for my retirement.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7567

SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 20

- 7714

SHARON RENEE CHABASSOLE , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ROBERT WILLIAM WAZNEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 02399

- HMH )

Submitted : June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 20212 Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert William Wazney , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Robert William Wazney seeks to appeal from the
district court’s orders : (1) denying his “motion to appeal” from the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion fo r stay, and (2) adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding the underlying domestic proceeding back to state court. We dismiss the appeals. Remand orders are generally “not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). The Supreme Court has explained that the appellate restrictions of “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) [i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction and defects in remo val procedures] are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Whether a remand order is reviewable is not based on a district court’s explicit citation to § 1447(c); “[t]he bar of § 1447(d) applie s to any order invoking substantively one of the grounds specified in § 1447(c).” Borneman v. United States , 213 F.3d 819, 824

- 25 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court remanded the case to the state court after finding that it lack ed subject matter jurisdiction

. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the district court’s orders. We deny Wazney’s motion for oral argument via teleconference and we disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
DISMISSED
#### §§ 37.63-37.69 [Reserved]
# Patriot Day, 2007 

September 11, 2001, was a defining moment in American history. On that terrible day, our Nation saw the face of evil as 19 men barbarously attacked us and wantonly murdered people of many races, nationalities, and creeds. On Patriot Day, we remember the innocent victims, and we pay tribute to the valiant firefighters, police officers, emergency personnel, and ordinary citizens who risked their lives so others might live.

After the attacks on 9/11, America resolved that we would go on the offense against our enemies, and we would not distinguish between the terrorists and those who harbor and support them. All Americans honor the selfless men and women of our Armed Forces, the dedicated members of our public safety, law enforcement, and intelligence communities, and the thousands of others who work hard each day to protect our country, secure our liberty, and prevent future attacks.

The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength, and 6 years ago, Americans came to the aid of neighbors in need. On Patriot Day, we pray for those who died and for their families. We volunteer to help others and demonstrate the continuing compassion of our citizens. On this solemn occasion, we rededicate ourselves to laying the foundation of peace with confidence in our mission and our free way of life.

By a joint resolution approved December 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-89), the Congress has designated September 11 of each year as “Patriot Day.” 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim September 11, 2007, as Patriot Day. I call upon the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as well as appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff on Patriot Day. I also call upon the people of the United States to observe Patriot Day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and remembrance services, to display the flag at half-staff from their homes on that day, and to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 a.m. eastern daylight time to honor the innocent Americans and people from around the world who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-4423

Billing code 3195-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,489,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,717,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,471,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,044,096
<PP&E>                                       9,493,853
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,838,308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,493,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,177,032
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    190,377
<COMMON>                                        29,325
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,493,140
<SALES>                                      4,246,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,292,002
<CGS>                                        2,019,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,693,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                598,795
<INCOME-TAX>                                   217,363
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            381,432
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   381,432
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.15


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 155 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 7, 2001.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1699) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 
2002. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused 
it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2. House Resolutions 130, 147, 149, and 150 are laid on the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0707 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Pamela Bell 

Address: 

30 Alclade Rd. 

Santa Fe, 87508 

Email: drbell@optimalbodybrain.com 

Phone: 505-466-9800 

Organization: Dr. Pamela J. Bell 

General Comment 

I am very supportive of most of the provisions of the interim final rules under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. These rules address many of the 

inequities in health insurance coverage of mental health care when compared to medical/surgical care 

that I have observed in the course of my mental health practice. 

However, in my opinion, two areas have not been sufficiently clarified. I am quite concerned that unless 

these points are more clearly specified in the final regulations, loopholes will remain that will permit 

widespread violation of the legislative intent of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health 

Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: 

1. In my opinion, the interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the 

comprehensive scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse services and 

medical/surgical services. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the 

Departments in the interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for 

MH/SUD must be comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both across and 

within each classification. Unless parity in scope of services is required in the final regulations, the 

intent of the Act will not be achieved. 

2. I strongly support the application of parity requirements to both QTLs and NQTLs as being consistent 

with the Act and allowing for broad application of the parity requirement with regard to treatment 

limitations. However, in order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must specify more 

clearly that any NQTLs that are applied by plans must be comparable for MH/SUD and medical surgical 

benefits, and that any NQTLs for MH/SUD must be no more restrictive than NQTLs that are predominant 

across the broad range of medical/surgical benefits. Respectifully, 

Dr. Pamela J. Bell 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae58fd 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
Exhibit 10.1(b)


             Schedule of Secured Convertible Note (demand) Issued by
             NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind on March 24, 2006



    Issue Date        Due Date           Principal          Conversion Price
    ----------        --------           ---------          ----------------
     03/24/06        Earlier of:          $550,000      Greater of: (i) $0.0025;
                     (i) demand;                        or (ii) the par value of
                     or (ii) 09/24/06                   NCT Group, Inc.
                                                        common stock on the
                                                        date of conversion
1210-AB32-2-1139.html[7/24/2015 6:27:43 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-22ds

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-1633

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Michael OConnell

General Comment

The same government that has rung up a public debt of $13.1 trillion, plus an intra-governmental debt of $5.06

 trillion, plus an implicit (unfunded liability) debt of $72.3 trillion, for an astounding mountain of debt reaching

 $90.5 trillion now proposes to interject their financial expertise to help me with my retirement savings?

 Something doesn't add up, and it's not on my side of the docket (which, to this point, has a little surplus).

Please heed the words of esteemed economist Friedrich Hayek: "The more the state 'plans' the more difficult

 planning becomes for the individual."

Stay out of retirement planning manipulation. Thanks.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,240,192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,154,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,611,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,562,412
<PP&E>                                       5,458,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                 816,003
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,681,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,338,196
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    190,377
<COMMON>                                        28,889
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,681,706
<SALES>                                      2,960,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,032,599
<CGS>                                        1,868,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,335,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (302,957)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (103,006)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (199,951)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (199,951)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>