alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Original Message----- 

From: marilynme@sbcglobal.net [mailto:marilynme@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:22 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

I am SICK of the obscene greed of corporate executives! Our health care 

payments are supposed to be for providing health care to people, NOT 

for suppling CEOs with evil amounts of money that they have not earned! 

Sincerely, 

Marilyn Escobar 

1100 Vinci Ave. 

Sacramento, CA 95838
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0695.html[7/21/2015 9:48:47 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-tmqp

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-0695

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: C K

General Comment

Listen, if I'm smart enough to save for retirement, I'm smart enough to know how to use my retirement funds. No

 government agency or representative should have a say in how I spend my hard earned, and hard saved, money.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 214 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 31, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 2505) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human cloning. 
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendments recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further amendment printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
Representative Scott of Virginia or his designee, which shall be separately 
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent; (3) after disposition of the amendment by Representative Scott, the 
further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania or 
his designee, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (4) one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## COURT OF APPEALS SECO ND DISTRICT OF T EXAS FORT WORTH N O
. 2
- 0 9
- 2 9 3
- C V T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S A P P E L L A N T V
. J O S E P H T
. R E E D A P P E L L E E

- - - - - - - - - - F R O M T H E 3 0 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F W I C H I T A C O U N T Y

- - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### A N D J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d a p p e l l a n t ’ s “ M o t i o n T o D i s m i s s F o r M o o t n e s s . ” I t i s t h e c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d ; t h e r e f o r e , w e d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l
. S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 2
. 3 ( a ) , 4 3
. 2 ( f ) ; S t a t e F a r m M u t . A u t o I n s . C o . v . S m i t h , N o . 0 2
- 0 3
- 0 0 0 4 6
- C V , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 2 0 7 1 4 5 5 , a t * 1 ( T e x . A p p . — F o r t W o r t h A u g . 2 9 , 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t . ) ( m e m . o p . )
. C o s t s o f t h e a p p e a l s h a l l b e p a i d b y a p p e l l a n t , f o r w h i c h l e t e x e c u t i o n i s s u e . S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 2
. 1 ( d )
. P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : L I V I N G S T O N , D A U P H I N O T , a n d G A R D N E R , J J
. D E L I V E R E D : N o v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 9

1
 S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 7
. 4
.
Presidential Documents

52749 

Federal Register 

Vol. 72, No. 179 

Monday, September 17, 2007 

Title 3— 

The President 

Presidential Determination No. 2007–30 of August 31, 2007 

Presidential Determination on Waiving Prohibition on United 

States Military Assistance With Respect to Montenegro 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the American 

Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), title II 

of Public Law 107–206 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby: 

• Determine that Montenegro has entered into an agreement with the United 

States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International 

Criminal Court from proceeding against U.S. personnel present in such 

country; and 

• Waive the prohibition of section 2007(a) of the Act with respect to this 

country for as long as such agreement remains in force. 

You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress 

and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 31, 2007. 

[FR Doc. 07–4616 

Filed 9–14–07; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10 


ebenthall on PRODPC61 with MISCELLANEOUSGWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0748.html[7/21/2015 11:31:28 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-64lj

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-0748

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Murray Day

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan my own retirement. I don't need "Big Brother Obama".
§ 39.91 Must PVOs permit passengers with a disability to travel with service animals? ( a ) As a PVO, you must permit service animals to accompany passengers with a disability.
( b ) You must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger in all locations that passengers can use on a vessel, including in lifeboats.
( c ) You must permit the passenger accompanied by the service animal to bring aboard a reasonable quantity of food for the animal aboard the vessel at no additional charge. If your vessel provides overnight accommodations, you must also provide reasonable refrigeration space for the service animal food.
( d ) You must accept the following as evidence that an animal is a service animal: Identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags, and/or the credible verbal assurances of a passenger with a disability using the animal.
( e ) If the legal requirements of a foreign government (*e.g.,* quarantine regulations) do not permit a service animal to disembark at a foreign port, as a PVO you may require the animal to remain on board while its user leaves the vessel. You must work with the animal's user to ensure that the animal is properly cared for during the user's absence.
EX-4.2



 






Exhibit 4.2




Individual Terms of Service Agreements of Members of the Management Board of Deutsche Bank AG




     The service agreement of each member of the Management Board of Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft in effect in 2005 is in the form set forth in Exhibit 4.1 to Deutsche Bank’s
2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F. The individual terms of these agreements for each member for 2005
are as follows (amounts in €):



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Annual	 	 	Target	 	 	Group Plan	 	 	Mid-Term	 	 	 	 
	Member of the	 	Effective	 	 	Basic Salary	 	 	Bonus	 	 	RoE	 	 	Incentive	 	 	Individual	 
	Management Board	 	Date	 	 	(§ 3(1))	 	 	(Annex A)	 	 	(Annex A)	 	 	(Annex B)	 	 	Deviations	 
	Dr. Josef Ackermann
	 	Jan. 1, 2004	 	 	1,150,000	 	 	 	4,500,000	 	 	 	23.7	%	 	 	4,350,000	 	 	 	—	 
	Dr. Clemens Boersig
	 	Jan. 1, 2004	 	 	800,000	 	 	 	1,500,000	 	 	 	23.7	%	 	 	1,950,000	 	 	 	*	 
	Dr. Tessen von Heydebreck
	 	Jan. 1, 2004	 	 	800,000	 	 	 	1,500,000	 	 	 	23.7	%	 	 	1,950,000	 	 	 	—	 
	Hermann-Josef Lamberti
	 	Jan. 1, 2004	 	 	800,000	 	 	 	1,500,000	 	 	 	23.7	%	 	 	1,950,000	 	 	 	—	 








 




			
	*	 	The last paragraph of Section 12 does not apply.
-----Original Message----- 

From: joycecasey@gmail.com [mailto:joycecasey@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:36 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Joyce Casey 

4101 Meadowlark Ln SE Apt 76 

Albuquerque, NM 87112
#### Juliette M. Boswell, *Appellant, v.*Nathaniel B. Ward, *Respondent.*

Order modified by striking out twenty-eight dollars and ten-cents, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
Exhibit 10.3.1

AMENDMENT NO. 1TO 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLANOFALFACELL CORPORATION

Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2004 Plan) of Alfacell Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the Company), the 2004 Plan is hereby amended by deleting paragraph (d) of Section 4 and replacing it with the following:

Award Limitations Under the Plan. No Eligible Person may be granted any Award or Awards under the Plan, the value of which Award or Awards is based solely on an increase in the value of
the Shares after the date of grant of such Award or Awards, for more than 1,000,000 Shares (subject to adjustment as provided for in Section 4(c) of the Plan), in the aggregate in any tax year. The foregoing annual limitation specifically includes
the grant of any Award or Awards representing qualified performance-based compensation within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing annual limitation, Ms. Kuslima Shogen may be granted Options to
purchase up to 1,250,000 Shares in the aggregate in the tax year 2008.

This Amendment No. 1 to the 2004 Plan (this Amendment) constitutes an integral part of the 2004
Plan.

For all purposes of this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meaning specified in the 2004 Plan.

This Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of the Company pursuant to Section 7(a) of the 2004 Plan and, unless otherwise expressly indicated herein, shall be construed, administered
and applied in accordance with all the terms and provisions of the 2004 Plan. Except as expressly amended or waived by the terms of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the 2004 Plan shall remain unamended and unwaived. The amendment set
forth herein shall be limited precisely as provided for herein to the provision expressly amended herein and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of, amendment of, consent to or modification of any other term or provision of any other document or any
transaction or further action on the part of the Company.

This Amendment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Company and its respective successors and assigns. In the event of any conflict between any of the terms of any stock option
agreement with respect to Ms. Shogens Options granted under the 2004 Plan, the terms of the 2004 Plan, as amended hereby, shall control.

Adopted by the Board of Directors April 16, 2008

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7489

In Re: DAVID WILLIAM LINDER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:04-cr-00191-JBF)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 1, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David William Linder, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David William Linder petitions for a writ of mandamus

seeking an order directing the Warden of the United States

Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, to provide him with a compact

disk that allegedly contains evidence relevant to his criminal

conviction. We deny the petition.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has

a clear right to the relief sought and no other means to seek the

requested relief. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy

and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v.

United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard,

811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Linder has not established that

he is entitled to the relief sought and fails to establish the

requisite extraordinary circumstances. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
H. Res. 20

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 6, 2001.

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he

is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the

House of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Goode.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1435

DONALD J. STRABLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-2498-6-13AK)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 22, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald J. Strable, Appellant Pro Se. W. Howard Boyd, Jr., Ronald

Keith Wray II, GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Strable v. South

Carolina, No. CA-96-2498-6-13AK (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 1997). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1079.html[7/22/2015 7:35:05 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-sya8

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-1079

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

There are enough financial advisors/lawyers/money managers/trust folks out here to assist with retirement. Keep

 the government out of the peoples business. We do not need any more meddling in our lives at this time. We

 already have enough of that. Thank you.
Merrimack,

June, 1895.

#### Folsom *v.*Folsom.

The homestead right may be set off on the petition of the wife against her husband.

Petition, for the set-off of a homestead. Facts found by the court. The defendant is the plaintiff’s husband and the owner ■ of the homestead, which is of greater value than $500. He owns no other real estate. Since 1881 the parties have not lived together, but the plaintiff has resided and now resides on the premises. The defendant claims that the petition cannot be maintained.

*Leach Stevens,*for the plaintiff.

*Willis G-. Buxton,*for the defendant.

If the plaintiff can have a homestead set out to her, it must follow that the wife of every real estate owner could do the same. This would be a startling innovation upon the practice and understanding of the people of this state. A review of the statute law pertaining to the right of homestead shows a constant changing, enlarging, and extension of that right. At first it simply gave the right to the widow or wife and minor children of a debtor while she occupied the premises. Laws 1851, *c.*1089; Gr. L., *c.*138, *s.*1. Then it gave • a life estate to the widow and minor children of the owner. Laws 1868, *c.*1, *s.*33; *Cross*v. *Weare,*62 N. H. 125; *Lake*v. *Page,*63 N. H. 318. It was not until 1878 that the husband, or a single person, had a homestead in his own real estate, and then only upon the death of the wife and the children becoming of age. Laws 1878, *c.*22. Now the language of the statutes would imply that the owner has a superior right to a homestead, being first named.

Carpenter, J.

The owner of a homestead right cannot convey or incumber it during the lifetime of his wife without her consent, or the approval of the judge of probate if she is not of *311sound mind. She is entitled to occupy it during her life. P. S., *e.*138, *ss.*2, 4. A voluntary separation does not deprive her of the right to occupy it. *Meader*v. *Place,*43 N. H. 307. It may be as important for her protection against her husband and those claiming under him, as for her protection against his creditors, that the homestead right be set off by metes and bounds *(Atkinson*v. *Atkinson,*40 N. H. 249, 251), especially if the estate in which it exists is of greater value than $500; and hence the statute expressly provides that it may be set off on her petition. P. S., *c.*138, *s.*16.

*Case discharged.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### § 39.57 Must PVOs make copies of this rule available to passengers?

As a PVO, you must keep a current copy of this Part on each vessel and each U.S. port or terminal you serve and make it available to passengers on request. If you are an entity that does not receive Federal financial assistance, you are not required to make this copy available in languages other than English. You must make it available in accessible formats on request, subject to the provisions of § 39.51(c).
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 3, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00346

- CV

R. V., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFOR E CH IEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the decree of termination signed by the tr i a l court on June 26, 2020

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the decree

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s decree of termina tion

.

Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
Unassociated Document


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 1

    TO

    BURLINGTON
      RESOURCES INC.

    2000
      STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

     

     

    The
      Burlington Resources Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors
      (the
“Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:

    1.    Article
      III is amended, effective as of January 1, 2005, by adding the following at
      the
      end thereof:

     

    “Anything
      in this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, the Plan Administrator and the
      Board shall neither have nor exercise any authority under this Plan to modify
      outstanding options so as to cause any such options to provide for a deferral
      of
      compensation subject to Section 409A of the Code.”

     

    2.    Article
      IV is amended, effective as of the “Effective Time” as defined in that certain
      Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 12, 2005 by and among
      Burlington Resources Inc., ConocoPhillips and Cello Acquisition Corp., by adding
      the following new Section 3:

     

    “3.    No
      Grants After Effective Time

     

    Anything
      in this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, no grants of options shall be
      made
      under this Plan on or after the “Effective Time” as defined in that certain
      Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of December 12, 2005 by and among the
      Company, Conoco Phillips and Cello Acquisition
      Corp.”
O r d e r e n t e re d J un e 19 , 2014

In The



## C **o u**  **r t**  **o f**  **A p**  **pea l**  **s**

**F i**  **f t**  **h D**  **i s**  **t r**  **i c**  **t o**  **f T**  **e x**  **a s**  **a t**  **D a**  **ll a**  **s**

No. 05

- 14

- 00539

- CV

IN RE TE N HA G E N E XCAVA T I N G , INC., R e la t or

O r igi n al P r o c e e d i n g f r om t h e Co un t y Co u r t at L aw No. 1

Dallas Co un t y, T e xas

T r ial Co u r t Ca u se No. CC

- 11

- 00454

- A



### O RD ER

I n a cc o r d a n c e with t h e C ou r t ’ s opinion i s s u e d this d a t e

, the p e tit i on f or w r it of

m a nd a mus is c ondition a l l y G RAN TE D

. The C ou r t ORD E RS the t r i a l jud g e

, the Hon o ra ble

D ’ m e t r ia B e nson, J ud g e of C oun t y C ou r t a t L a w No. 1, to VACA T E h e r M arc h 24, 2014 “ O r d er

D e n y i n g D e f e nd a nt T e n H a g e n E x ca v a ti n g

, I n c .’ s Motion f or P l a inti f f J o se C a st r o

- L op e z to be

E x a min e d b y D e f e nd a nt ’ s M e di ca l E x p er t.” S hould the t r i a l jud g e fa il to c omp l y with t his

o r d er

, t h e w r it will issu e

. T h e C ou r t O R D E RS the t r i a l judge to f ile w ith this C ou r t, w i t h in

t h i rt y ( 30) d ays of t h e d a t e of t h is o r d er

, a cer ti f i e d c o p y o f h e r o r d e r issu e d in c ompli a n c e

with this o r d er

. W e D E NY a s moot re l a to r’ s m otion f or e m er g e n c y st a y

. W e ORD E R th a t

re l a tor r ec ov e r its c osts of this o r i g in a l p r o cee di n g fr om rea l p ar t y in int ere s t.

.

/s/ DA V I D E VANS

J U S T I C E