alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-136744, No. 333-127778, No. 333-108561,
No. 333-44437 and No. 333-15929) of our report dated April 15, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Comprehensive Care Corporation and subsidiaries included in this Report (Form 10-K) for the period ended
December 31, 2009.



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Kirkland, Russ, Murphy & Tapp P.A.
|Kirkland, Russ, Murphy & Tapp P.A.    
|                                      
|Clearwater, Florida                   
|April 15, 2010                        



86
#### § 39.95 May PVOs limit their liability for loss of or damage to wheelchairs or other assistive devices?

Consistent with any applicable requirements of international law, you must not apply any liability limits with respect to loss of or damage to wheeled mobility assistive devices or other assistive devices. The criterion for calculating the compensation for a lost, damaged, or destroyed wheelchair or other assistive device is the original purchase price of the device.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0575.html[7/20/2015 9:22:31 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-b5dh

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-0575

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Colleen Murphy

General Comment

i have enough unwanted government intrusion in my life. leave my decisions alone. I am not where I need others

 making decisions for me. I am quite capable of decision making. LEAVE US ALONE
EXHIBIT 24.7



POWER OF ATTORNEY



KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Rosemarie B. Greco do hereby appoint John W. Rowe and Randall E. Mehrberg, 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 Exelon Corporation, 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/ Rosemarie B. GrecoRosemarie B. Greco




DATE:
February 5, 2007
1210-AB32-2-1445.html[7/26/2015 5:14:42 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwd-5buk

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-1941

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Daniel Jenkins

General Comment

Stay out of my retirement. I earned it, not you. My retirement is not the government's property. No more

 regulations.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3552

___________ Gabriel Wade Mills, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. John Anderson, Evaluations, * Arkansas State Hospital; * [UNPUBLISHED] Albert Kittrell, Doctor, Arkansas * State Hospital; Konis, Dr., Medical * Doctor, Arkansas State Hospital; * Arkansas Partnership Program, * Medical Doctor, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 26, 2008 Filed: March 31, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable George Howard, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopti ng the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magi strate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- Gabriel Mills appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment for defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which Mills sought to challenge his commitment to the Arkansas State Ho spital (ASH) under the Arkansas Act 911 Program and alleged that he received inad equate treatment for a medical condition while he was a patient at ASH and late r at another Act 911 Program facility. We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants. SeeAnderson v. Larson , 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (de novo review). First, Mills’s challenge to hi s commitment is not properly brought in this section 1983 action, cf. Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973) (state prisoner’s challenge to fact or duration of confinement must be brought through habeas corpus after exhaustion of state remedies); and second, the medical records show that Mills received reasonable testing and medication for his medical complaints, see Logan v. Clarke , 119 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent where they treated prisoner on numerous occasions and offered sensible medication and treatment); Kayser v. Caspari , 16 F.3d 280, 281 (8th Cir. 1994) (plaintiff’s self-diagnosis alone will not suffice to establish serious medical condition); Coleman v. Rahija , 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir. 1997) (failure to establish “the detrimental effect of delay in treatment precludes a claim of deliberate indifference”).
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
----

| EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002             In connection with the Annual Report of Central Vermont Public Service Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert H. Young, Chief Executive Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:             (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/ Robert H. Young                                                 Robert H. YoungChief Executive OfficerMarch 15, 2010 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Central Vermont Public Service Corporation ("CVPS") and will be retained by CVPS and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, October 30, 1995 (136), Para 136.19 H.Res. 247--Unfinished Business]
[Page 1801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.136.19  h.res. 247--unfinished business

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. RIGGS, pursuant to clause 5, rule I, 
announced the unfinished business to be the motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the resolution (H. Res. 247) expressing the sense of the House 
of Representatives relating to the deployment of United States Armed 
Forces on the ground in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina to enforce a peace agreement.
  The question being put,
  Will the House suspend the rules and agree to said resolution?
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

It was decided in the

Yeas

315

affirmative

Nays

103
```
|  | Cooling Water Intake Structures - CWA §316(b)             Recent                     Additions | Contact                     Us |                     Print                     Version                     Search:                     EPA                     Home > Water > Water                     Science > Industrial                     Water Pollution Controls > Cooling                     Water Intake Structures 316(b) > Phase                     II > Fact Sheet: NODA |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

||
||
#### Sylvia G. Milligan and others, *Appellants, v.*James Allen, *Respondent.*

— Decree affirmed, with costs against appellants. Opinion by

Boardman, J.
§ 299.401 Clearance requirements. ( a ) *General.* The rolling stock shall be designed to meet all applicable clearance requirements of the railroad. The railroad shall make its clearance diagrams available to FRA upon request.
( b ) *Clearance above top of rail.* No part or appliance of a trainset except the wheels, sander tips, wheel guards, and other components designed to be in the path of the wheel (*i.e.,* above the rail and aligned inside the wheel width path) may be less than 60 mm (2.36 inches) above the top of rail.
( c ) *Obstacle deflector.* The leading end of a trainset shall be equipped with an obstacle deflector that extends across both rails of the track. The minimum clearance above the rail of the obstacle deflector shall be 76 mm (3 inches), and the maximum clearance shall be 229 mm (9 inches).
( d ) *Flexible wheel guards.* The lead axle of a trainset shall be equipped with flexible wheel guards mounted on the bogie below the primary suspension with a maximum clearance above the rail of 15 mm (0.59 inches).
###### Editorial Note on Part 385

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 385.1003 Definitions.

As used in this subpart:

*Agency Official* means the FMCSA employee with delegated authority under this subpart.

*Registration* means the registration required under 49 U.S.C. 13902, 49 CFR part 365, and 49 CFR part 368.

*Reincarnated* or *affiliated motor carriers* means motor carriers with common ownership, common management, common control or common familial relationship.

[79 FR 3540, Jan. 22, 2014, as amended at 86 FR 57071, Oct. 14, 2021]
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 895

To abolish the Advanced Technology Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 2001

Mr. ROYCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Science

A BILL

To abolish the Advanced Technology Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

4 The National Institute of Standards and Technology

5 Act is amended—

6 (1) in section 2(d) (15 U.S.C. 272(d)), by strik7 ing ‘‘25, 26, and 28’’ and inserting ‘‘25 and 26’’;

8 (2) in section 10(h)(1) (15 U.S.C. 278(h)(1)),

9 by striking ‘‘, including the Program established

10 under section 28,’’; and

11 (3) by striking section 28.

Æ
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 2:13 PM

Received: July 14, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jz5-x1m6

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-2257

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: JK Barnett

General Comment

It is not the government's responsibility to tell anyone how to use their hard earned money. In 

fact, there are many more capable and responsible individuals than our present government, who 

live within their means, manage their own finances and by doing so are NOT burdens on society. 

Until Washington itself and all the ridiculous bureaucracies it has established practice what the 

impose on contributing, law abiding citizens, it has no credibility at all.

Furthermore, leave our money, investments, retirements, and everything alone.

I and many others like myself are fully capable of managing our own retirements and lives.

Please stay out of it and respectfully drop all proposed regulations on how we spend our money 

invested in IRA's, 401K's and otherwise.

We fully expect action in favor of investors.
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.13 Petitions to review and request for hearing: Driver qualification proceedings. ( a ) Within 60 days after service of the determination under § 391.47 of this chapter or the letter of disqualification, the driver or carrier may petition to review such action. Such petitions must be submitted to the Agency Decisionmaker and must contain the following: ( 1 ) Identification of what action the petitioner wants overturned;
( 2 ) Copies of all evidence upon which petitioner relies in the form set out in § 386.49;
( 3 ) All legal and other arguments which the petitioner wishes to make in support of his/her position;
( 4 ) A request for oral hearing, if one is desired, which must set forth material factual issues believed to be in dispute;
( 5 ) Certification that the petition has been filed in accordance with § 386.6(c); and
( 6 ) Any other pertinent material.
( b ) Failure to submit a petition as specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall constitute a waiver of the right to petition for review of the determination or letter of disqualification. In these cases, the determination or disqualification issued automatically becomes the final decision of the Agency Decisionmaker 30 days after the time to submit the reply or petition to review has expired, unless the Agency Decisionmaker orders otherwise.
( c ) If the petition does not request a hearing, the Agency Decisionmaker may issue a final decision and order based on the evidence and arguments submitted.
[50 FR 40306, Oct. 2, 1985, as amended at 78 FR 58481, Sept. 24, 2013]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0612.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-qyd6

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-0612

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: shannon jones

General Comment

Just stop Obama . This health care program has cause enough damage. Just stop. Leave it alone.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1170.html[7/22/2015 3:04:57 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-bqnw

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-1170

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I've spent my life working towards retirement. Government should not get in the way of my retirement planning.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                        CURRENT DIRECTOR FEE ARRANGEMENTS

Directors of the Company receive fees for service on the Board of Directors of
Heritage Financial Group (the "Company") and compensation for service on the
Board of Directors of HeritageBank of the South (the "Bank"). Antone D. Lehr,
Chairman of the Company and the Bank, and Joseph C. Burger, Vice Chairman of the
Company and the Bank, will receive $57,000 for the year ended December 31, 2006,
for service on both Boards and all Board committees. Douglas J. McGinley,
Director of the Company and the Bank, will receive $27,000 for service on both
Boards and all Board committees. The other non-employee directors of the Bank
(all of whom do not serve on the Board of the Company) will receive $1,000 a
month for Board service, $500 for each Board meeting attended and $300 for each
Board committee meeting attended. The employee directors of the Company and the
Bank will receive no compensation for Board service.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABELARDO ADRIANO CANGCO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71945

Agency No. A041-163-014

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016** 

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Abelardo Adriano Cangco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) discretionary denial of a waiver of fraud

or misrepresentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Our jurisdiction is governed

FILED

JUN 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and we review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088,

1091 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding or err in agreeing with

the IJ that Cangco is removable as charged in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) as an

alien, who by fraud or willful misrepresentation, procured a visa or admission into

the United States, where substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that

Cangco had engaged in fraud in obtaining his lawful permanent resident status and

the IJ ordered Cangco removed on the charges contained in the NTA. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). To the extent the IJ may have erred in addressing removability

only in the order and not in the decision, Cangco failed to demonstrate any

prejudice resulting from such error. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 523-24

(9th Cir. 2006).

The agency was not required to determine whether Cangco was statutorily

eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), where it determined that it

would deny such an application in the exercise of discretion. See Simeonov v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to make

findings on non-dispositive issues). 

2 13-71945
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of a waiver

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H), and Cangco does not raise a colorable question of

law or due process claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157-58 (9th Cir.

2005). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 13-71945