alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Stan Fortier [mailto:stanfortier@charter.net] 

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 12:15 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB-32

To the DOL: 

Recently, I helped a client decide what to do with her 401(k) account when she terminated 

employment. The decision was made that rolling the assets into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) 

was the best choice for Jane. I helped Jane decide how to invest the IRA account to best meet Jane’s 

risk tolerance, financial situation, tax status, investment objectives, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance. I 

received commissions from the purchase of mutual funds and an annuity. Under the current rule, I 

would be prohibited from providing any of those services. The likely result would be that Jane would 

instead just cash out her 401(k) and would suffer the tax and the early withdrawal penalty, a wrong 

decision but one likely if she hadn’t had access to my services.

One thing I know after 27 years as an agent is that the public at large knows very little about what to do 

at retirement, how to effectively manage a lifetime of savings, and how to understand complex tax 

issues. Not to mention Medicare and Social Security planning. The services I provide HELP and do not 

hinder the customer. My 27 years of financial experience and knowledge is worth something. I AM 

WORTH every cent of the commissions I EARN! This legislation is harmful, to not only the representative 

but most importantly the customer.

No to this...please!

Sincerely,

Stanley P. Fortier

Stan Fortier Insurance Services

217 S. 41st St.

Yakima, WA
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,293

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

JUAN O'NEIL WHITAKER JR.,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Saline District Court; JARED B. JOHNSON, judge. Opinion filed September 24, 2021.

Appeal dismissed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and 

(h).

Before BRUNS, P.J., SCHROEDER and GARDNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Juan O'Neil Whitaker Jr. pled guilty in a global plea agreement to 

multiple felonies and misdemeanors in six different cases, which the district court 

consolidated for appeal. The facts of the cases are not material to resolve the issue on 

appeal.

At sentencing, Whitaker moved the district court to depart from the presumptive 

prison sentences in his cases to probation and to run his felony conviction sentences 

consecutive. The district court announced his presumptive sentences in 19CR233 for his 

two felony convictions for a controlling sentence of 38 months' imprisonment; his 

sentence in 20CR183 of 34 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively to 
2

19CR233, for a base sentence of 72 months; and then ordered all of his other sentences as 

announced in each case to run concurrent to the base sentence. Next, based on Whitaker's

criminal history score of A, the district court denied his motion to depart.

We granted Whitaker's request for summary disposition of his appeal under 

Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). Whitaker argues the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion for dispositional departure to probation, but 

he also concedes we lack jurisdiction to consider his presumptive sentences. Whitaker is 

correct. Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(c)(1), this court "shall not review . . . [a]ny 

sentence that is within the presumptive sentence for the crime." Whitaker's on-grid felony 

sentences fall within the presumptive ranges established by K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6804 

for nondrug crimes. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider Whitaker's claim the 

district court abused its discretion.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors
of The CIT Group, Inc.:

      We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statements
No. 33-85224, No. 333-70249,  No. 333-36061,  No. 333-22283 and No. 333-27465 on
Form S-3 of The CIT Group,  Inc. of our report dated January 28, 1998,  relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of The CIT Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related  consolidated  statements of income,
changes  in  stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the years in the
three-year  period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December
31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of The CIT Group, Inc.

                                            KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 17, 1998
#### § 179.202-9 Top fittings protection.

The tank car tank must be equipped with top fittings protection conforming to AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix E paragraph 10.2.1 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter).

[80 FR 26749, May 8, 2015]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0729.html[7/21/2015 10:59:49 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-rn4k

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-0729

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: mike Anonymous

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone.
Exhibit 32.2



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

In connection  with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Jersey Central Power
& Light Company ("Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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

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


                                                  /s/Stephen E. Morgan
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     Stephen E. Morgan
                                                        President
                                                  (Chief Executive Officer)
                                                        June 25, 2004


                                                  /s/Richard H. Marsh
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                     Richard H. Marsh
                                                 Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                        June 25, 2004
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1240.html[7/22/2015 8:59:41 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-r4wm

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-1240

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

The government needs to stay our of my hard working savings accounts.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John W. Wood, Appellant, *v.*The Department of Health of the City of New York, Respondent.

*People ex rel. Wood*v. *Dept. of*Health, *N. Y.*City, 144 App. Div. 628, affirmed.

(Argued May 30, 1911;

decided June 13, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 5, 1911, which dismissed a writ of certiorari and affirmed the proceedings of the defendant in removing the relator from the position of assistant registrar of records in the department of health.

*George M. Pinney, Jr.,*and *Warren C. Van Slyke*for appellant.

*Archibald B. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*and *John F. O’Brien*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending November 3, 2012

----

Bank Holding Companies            Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation -- to acquire up to 9.9 percent of the voting shares of The Bank of East Asia, Limited, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China, which is a registered bank holding company (FRB Order No. 2012-11).            -Approved, October 31, 2012            Forms            Forms -- initial Board review to extend with revision the Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire (FR 1379a), Federal Reserve Consumer Help (FRCH) - Consumer Survey (FR 1379b), and Consumer Online Complaint Form (FR 1379c), and Semiannual Report of Derivatives Activity (FR 2436); to extend without revision the Domestic Branch Notification (FR 4001); and to conduct the Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and Derivatives Market Activity (FR 3036).            -Proposed, October 31, 2012            Monetary and Financial Policy            Term Deposit Facility -- TDF auction of $3 billion in 28-day term deposits on November 5, 2012.            -Announced, October 31, 2012            Personnel            Division of Research and Statistics -- joint appointment of Janice Shack-Marquez as deputy director in Research and Statistics and the Division of Monetary Affairs; appointment of Thomas Laubach as associate director; Michael Kiley as senior adviser in Research and Statistics and associate director in the Office of Financial Stability Policy and Research; Robin Prager as senior adviser; and Jeremy Rudd as adviser.            -Announced, November 2, 2012                        Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems -- appointment of Niel Willardson as acting deputy director.            -Approved, October 30, 2012                        Office of the Secretary -- appointment of Angela Dirr as visiting assistant secretary.            -Announced, November 1, 2012                        Office of the Secretary -- appointment of Margaret Shanks as deputy secretary.            -Announced, November 1, 2012            Enforcement            Liberty Bancorp of Georgia, Inc., Clayton, Georgia -- written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the State of Georgia Department of Banking and Finance.            -Announced, November 1, 2012                        Macatawa Bank Corporation, Holland, Michigan -- written agreement dated July 23, 2010, terminated October 26, 2012.            -Announced, November 1, 2012            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
§ 299.329 Rail joints and torch cut rails. ( a ) Each rail joint, insulated joint, expansion joint, and compromise joint shall be of a structurally sound design and appropriate dimensions for the rail on which it is applied.
( b ) If a joint bar is cracked, broken, or permits excessive vertical movement of either rail when all bolts are tight, it shall be replaced.
( c ) Except for glued-insulated joints, each joint bar shall be held in position by track bolts tightened to allow the joint bar to firmly support the abutting rail ends. For track Classes H0 to H3 track bolts shall be tightened, as required, to allow longitudinal movement of the rail in the joint to accommodate expansion and contraction due to temperature variations.
( d ) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each rail shall be bolted with at least two bolts at each joint.
( e ) Clamped joint bars may be used for temporary repair during emergency situations, and speed over that rail end and the time required to replace the joint bar must not exceed the limits specified in the inspection, testing, and maintenance program.
( f ) No rail shall have a bolt hole which is torch cut or burned.
( g ) No joint bar shall be reconfigured by torch cutting.
( h ) No rail having a torch cut or flame cut end may be used.
1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1164

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Brandon Deverell, * Northern District of Iowa. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: May 21, 2008 Filed: June 16, 2008

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

___________ PER CURIAM. After revoking Brandon Deverell’s supervis ed release, the district court 1 sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 18 months of supervised release. Deverell appeals, arguing that the additional supe rvised-release term renders his sentence unreasonable because the prison term was ade quate punishment for the violations, and the record failed to indicate the additi onal supervised release would accomplish anything.-2- We conclude that the district court’s a ddition of an 18-month term of supervised release to Deverell’s 12-month prison term did not render his revocation sentence unreasonable. The court, upon revoking Deverell’s supervised release, had the authority to sentence him to a term of imprisonment followed by a term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), (h). Although th e court noted Deverell’s previous failures while on supervision, the court prope rly considered all applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in deciding what revocation sentence to ultimately impose. See United States v. Nelson , 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sent ence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, § 3553(a) factors and adviso ry Guidelines range). Finally, both the prison term and the supervis ed-release term are within the applicable statutory maximums. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a)(3) (felony is Class C if maximum prison term is less than 25 years but 10 or more year s), 3583(b)(2) (for Class C felony, maximum supervised release term is 3 years), 3583( e)(3) (for Class C felony, maximum prison term upon revocation of supervised release is 2 years), 3583(h) (supervised release component of revocation sentence “shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that re sulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release”).
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
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-0683 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Victoria L Ibric 

Address: 

65 N. Madison Ave 

suite 405 

Pasadena, CA, 91101 

Email: dribric@sbcglobal.net 

Phone: 626-577-2202 

Organization: NNRI, Inc 

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.Thank you, Dr.Victoria L. Ibric 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae561e 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
#### § 374.105 Discrimination in terminal facilities.

No motor carrier of passengers subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B shall in the operation of vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce provide, maintain arrangements for, utilize, make available, adhere to any understanding for the availability of, or follow any practice which includes the availability of, any terminal facilities which are so operated, arranged, or maintained as to involve any separation of any portion thereof, or in the use thereof on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin.

[36 FR 1338, Jan. 28, 1971. Redesignated at 61 FR 54709, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 15423, Apr. 1, 1997; 81 FR 68345, Oct. 4, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  May-31-1997
<CASH>                        1,813,766
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 179,718
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        17,824,735
<DEPRECIATION>                000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                19,990,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,016,214
<BONDS>                       000
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    18,974,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  19,990,871
<SALES>                       1,852,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,910,159
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,411,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            000
<INCOME-PRETAX>               000
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           499,089
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  499,089
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 4.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                 4.94
        

</TABLE>
### 1



# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 980 V

Filed: June 8, 2021

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

LISA DAY

, * UNPUBLISHED

*

Petitioner, * Decision on Joint Stipulation;

* Guillain

- Barre Syndrome

v. * (“GBS”); Tetanus

- Diphtheria

-

* acellular Pertussis (“TDaP”)

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Vaccine.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait

, Esq.

, Maglio Christopher & Toale

, Seattle, WA

, for petitioner.

Claudia Gangi , Esq

. , US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION ON JOINT STIPULATION 1

Roth

, Special Master:

On July 9, 2019, Lisa Day [“Ms. Day ” or “petitioner”] filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

. 2 Petitioner allege s that she suffered

from Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) after receiving a Tetanus

- Diphtheria

- acellular Pertussis

(“TDaP”) vaccine on May 17, 2018

. Stipulation

, filed June 8, 2021 , at ¶¶ 1

- 4. Respondent denies

that t he immunization caused petitioner ’s injury. Stipulation at ¶ 6.

1 Although this Decision has been formally designated “unpublished,” it will nevertheless be posted on the

Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347,

116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). This means the Decision will

be available to anyone with access to the internet. However, the parties may object to the Decision’s

inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Spe cifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party

has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is

a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) th at includes

medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of

privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole Decision will be available to the public. Id

.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Sta t. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

(2012 ).

### 2

Nevertheless, the parties h ave agreed to settle the case. On June 8, 2021 , the parties filed a

joint stipulation agreeing to settle this case and describing the settlement terms.

Respondent agrees to issue the fol lowing payment :

A lump sum of $ 120,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, Lisa Day

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that would b e av ailable under §

300aa

- 15(a).

I adopt the parties’ stipula tion attached hereto, and award compensation in the amount and

on the terms set forth therein. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance

with this decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Mindy Michaels Roth

Mindy Michaels Roth

Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party filing a notice

renouncing the right to seek review.