alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1210-AB32-2-1314.html[7/26/2015 1:24:20 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvw-wqtg

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-1809

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Millsaps

Address:

1040 Glen Clark Way

Knoxville, TN, 37920

Email: bobbymillsaps@msn.com

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone! I've worked all my life for the little I have saved and paid more than my share of

 taxes to pay your salaries. I'll take care of my own finances, thank you. After seeing how far in debt our country

 is, do you think I want YOU telling me what to do with my own money? NO WAY! Leave it alone!

Very Sincerely,

Robert Millsaps
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/19/15 2:05 PM

Received: July 14, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jz8-l8f1

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-2262

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Bryan Hayward

General Comment

I don't need or want the government regulating any more of my financial decisions and or 

investments. Thanks for listening to my concern.

Bryan Hayward
EXHIBIT 10(A)(3)

SERVOTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


As of May 1, 2003

Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
1110 Maple Street
Elma, NY 14059

Dear Dr. Trbovich:

You  and  Servotronics,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  are  parties  to an  employment
agreement, as amended and restated on August 8, 1986 and as subsequently amended
as of October 1, 1986,  October 1, 1987, July 20, 1988, October 1, 1988, October
1, 1989, May 1, 1990, May 1, 1991, May 1, 1992, May 1, 1993, March 28, 1994, May
1, 1994,  May 1, 1995,  May 1, 1996,  May 1, 1997,  March 9, 1998,  May 1, 1998,
October 6, 1998,  April 28, 1999,  May 1, 1999, May 1, 2000, May 1, 2001 July 3,
2001, May 1, 2002 and July 3, 2002 (the "Agreement"),  pursuant to which you are
employed by the Company.

This  will  confirm  your  agreement  and  that of the  Company  (pursuant  to a
resolution  of the Board of Directors  passed at a meeting held on July 3, 2003)
to amend Paragraph 3 of the Agreement to delete  "$353,395.00" and insert in its
place "$363,995.00".

Except as specifically provided herein, all of the other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

If the foregoing meets with your approval and you are willing to become bound
hereby, will you please sign and return to the undersigned the enclosed copy of
this letter.

Very truly yours,

SERVOTRONICS, INC.


/S/ Lee D. Burns
----------------------------
Lee D. Burns
Treasurer/Secretary


ACCEPTED AND AGREED


/S/ Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
----------------------------
Dr. Nicholas D. Trbovich
#### § 198.33 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of ANDREW HOOD.

*Costs*— when *a reversal by an appellate court of a judgment with costs, entitles the successful pan'ty to the costs of the court below.*

Motion to resettle an order of the General Term made February 13, 1883, in pursuance of a decision of that court. That order reversed a decree of the surrogate requiring the appellant Frederick Hood to pay Maria Louisa Hood a large sum of money and awarded the appellant one bill of costs.

The court at General Term said: “ There was no misapprehension either in the decision or the order. We intended to reverse the surrogate’s decree with costs, and we intended to deal with the whole subject of the costs. It was all before us, -and the decree was reversed and its entire effect reversed. We decided that the appellant should have succeeded before the surrogate, and if he had done so he would have been entitled to costs there. We intended to place him in the position he would have occupied had the decree of the surrogate been in his favor. It is claimed that no costs should have been awarded against Maria Louisa Hood, for the reason that she was not a party to the proceedings. What is meant by this was not very cle'ar. The decree ordered the money paid to her and she was a very necessary party to the appeal and'her attorneys appeared for her. No such question was raised on the appeal, and it must have been assumed that she was regularly brought into the appellate court.

“ While it may be assumed that when an appellate court awards *473costs the effect is to include costs of sucli court only, yet, if it assumes to deal with the whole subject and wipes out and reverses the judgment or decree appealed from with costs, that includes all the costs of all the inferior courts. *{Mtirtha*v. Ourley, 92 N. Y., 359., unreported.) Such was the effect allowed by this court to the decision of the Court of Appeals, *In the Matter of Walsh*(89 N. Y., 453), where all of the proceedings below, both in Special Term and General Term, were dismissed with costs, we held that the court intended to control the whole subject and award costs in the lower courts, such'were our views and these are our reasons for the order complained of.”

*Edward P. Wilder,*for the executor.

*Poe c& MaeMin,*for William and Anna Hood.

Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.,, concurred.

Motion for resettlement of order of General Term denied, with costs and disbursements.
#### Candee, Smith & Howland Company, Respondent, *v.*The City of New York, Defendant, and James D. Murphy Company et al., Appellants.

Candee, *Smith & Howland Co.*v. *City of New York,*135 App. Div. 915, affirmed.

(Argued April 4, 1911;

decided April 25, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 11, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien.

*Arnold L.*Davis, *John Burlinson Coleman*and *Edward B. Finch*for appellants.

*Albert B. Hager*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., G-ray, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook, Chase and Collin, JJ.
#### THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EXCISE OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, Respondent, *v.*GURDEN F. MERCHANT, Appellant.

*Hridence*— when *the d/rinking of liquor in a store raises a presumption that it was sold, to he drunk there.*

Upon the trial of an action to recover penalties for violations of the excise law the court charged, “that upon proof being made of the fact that liquor was seen to he drunk on the premises, that is *prima facie*evidence that it was sold with intent that it was to he drank on the premises.”

*Held,*no error.

Appeal from a judgment, entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff rendered at the Cayuga Circuit for $1,000 damages, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the court before which the trial was had.

The action was brought to recover penalties for alleged violations of the excise laws.

In the course of his charge the judge said : “ The law provides in such case as this that upon proof being made of the fact that liquor was seen to be drunk on the premises, that is *prima facie*evidence that it was sold with intent that it was to be drank on the premises.” To this portion of the charge the defendant’s counsel excepted.

*J. JD. Teller,*for the appellant.

*F. D. Wright,*for the respondent.

Barker, J.:

All the questions presented, save one, were considered in the case of the same plaintiff against Burtis, just decided.

*20It appeared that the defendant kept a saloon in the city oí Auburn. The court charged the jury that the calling for liquor and drinking the same on the premises was *prima facie*evidence of a sale, and the defendant excepted.

It has been held that where a person enters a tavern or saloon and calls for whisky or any other beverage, and it is set out to him by tlio proprietor, and he drinks it, nothing more being said, the law implies a sale. It was so held in *The State*v. *Jarrett*(35 Mo., 357), and in this court in the unreported case of *Stark*v. Lansing, decided in March, 1884.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Smith, P. J., Bradley and Haight, JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHIRON
CORPORATION'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DATED JUNE 30, 1997 AND
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997<F5>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997<F5>
<CASH>                                         111,927
<SECURITIES>                                    48,872<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  315,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    188,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               716,433
<PP&E>                                         836,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 249,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,694,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          463,581
<BONDS>                                        393,396<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,735
<OTHER-SE>                                     807,031<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,694,017
<SALES>                                        507,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               664,046
<CGS>                                          215,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               195,746<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,984
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,078
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
<FN>
<F1>CONSISTS OF BOTH SHORT-TERM AND NONCURRENT INVESTMENTS IN MARKETABLE DEBT
SECURITIES.
<F2>CONSISTS OF CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES, CAPITAL LEASE OBLIGATIONS, AND
NOTES PAYABLE, NET OF CURRENT MATURITIES.
<F3>CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL, ACCUMULATED DEFICIT, CUMULATIVE FOREIGN
CURRENCY TRANSLATION ADJUSTMENT, UNREALIZED GAIN FROM INVESTMENTS AND NOTES
RECEIVABLE FROM STOCK SALES.
<F4>CONSISTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES.
<F5>ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR END WILL BE, AND PERIOD END WAS, DEC-28-1997 AND
JUN-29-1997, RESPECTIVELY.  FOR PRESENTATION PURPOSES, DATES USED IN THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES REFER TO THE CALENDAR MONTH END.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 268 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 86
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 268

                          [Report No. 107-248]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2904) making appropriations for military construction, 
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of 
 Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2001

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2904) making appropriations for military construction, 
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of 
 Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2904) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, 
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. All 
points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as 
read.

                                                  House Calendar No. 86

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 268

                          [Report No. 107-248]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2904) making appropriations for military construction, 
family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of 
 Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 16, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.383 What procedures apply if you contest the issuance of a PIE? ( a ) DOT conducts PIE proceedings in a fair and informal manner. The Director may use flexible procedures to allow you to present matters in opposition. The Director is not required to follow formal rules of evidence or procedure in creating the record of the proceeding.
( b ) The Director will consider any information or argument he or she determines to be relevant to the decision on the matter.
( c ) You may submit any documentary evidence you want the Director to consider. In addition, if you have arranged an informal meeting with the Director, you may present witnesses and confront any person the initiating official presents as a witness against you.
( d ) In cases where there are material factual issues in dispute, the Director or his or her designee may conduct additional fact-finding.
( e ) If you have arranged a meeting with the Director, the Director will make a transcribed record of the meeting available to you on your request. You must pay the cost of transcribing and copying the meeting record.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0612. NOLAN ENGLISH et al. v. JOSEPH LEWIS et al.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed

by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rules 22 (a) and 23 (a), regarding the filing

of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was

docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On November 22, 2017, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration

of errors and a brief no later than December 01, 2017. As of the date of this order, the

appellant’s enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this

appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals

Rules 7, 23 (a).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 14, 2017

12/14/2017
1210-AB32-2-1590.html[7/26/2015 8:33:32 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxw-mzgm

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-2087

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Chris Yurk

Address:

2290 W. 46th Street

Loveland, CO, 80538

Email: hchrisyurk66@gmail.com

General Comment

To Whom It May Concern

I understand plans are being made that could reduce my influence on how I plan to use my retirement funds ---

 and that this plan could increase the influence the government or one or more of its agencies could have on the

 use of my (and other private citizens) personal retirement funds. 

I have had fifty years to accumulte my personal retirement funds and I do NOT need or want any one,

 particularly the government or a governmental agency, to become involved in my retirement management. I can

 manage for myself, thank you! 

I do not support any legislation or activity by government, its agencies, either federal, national or local, to

 interfere with the use of my personal retirement funds. I encourage any legislator or agency head not to help

 establish any law, regulation or policy which could lead to this in any form. 

I do remind all that funds such as Social Security funds collected from private citzens, were to be set aside for the

 eventual use of those citizens. The misuse of SS funds by different departments of the government or agencies

 thereof were not authorized and should be discontinued immediately. 

H. Chris Yurk
#### Constance B. Price, *Respondent, v.*Stephen Brown and others, *Executors, etc., Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 24.27**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **Thomas J. Ridge** do hereby appoint John W.Rowe and Paul Bonney, 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 2008 of PECO Energy Company, together with any amendments thereto, to be filedwith 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. 

**Thomas J. Ridge**

**DATE: February 2, 2009**
1210-AB32-2-1642.html[7/26/2015 9:30:31 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jy1-i7d8

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-2140

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kelsey Alexander

Address:

2075 Marlin Way

Castle Rock, CO, 80109

General Comment

Your assertions that Americans cannot make their own decisions regarding investments within their IRA

 accounts is rediculous. Totally..

We demand to have the freedom to invest the money we earned and have saved for retirement to be invested as

 we see best.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7755** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JAMES WARD , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00083

- MR

- DLH

- 1; 1:15

- cv - 00161

- MR )

Submitted : May 1 8 , 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorneys, David A. Thorneloe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed
. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificat e of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the meri ts, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ward has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and arg ument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0793.html[7/21/2015 1:05:18 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-smws

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-0793

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Constance Cosky

Address:

719 35th Street

College Hill

Beaver Falls, PA, 15010

Email: lady.constance.of.glencoe@gmail.com

Phone: Unlisted

General Comment

I can handle my life myself, thank you.

I have an exceptional brain, MENSA type. I do not need the government's assistance. Thank you.