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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 153 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 36
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 153

                          [Report No. 107-85]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2001

   Mr. Reynolds, 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. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are 
waived. The conference report shall be considered as read. The yeas and 
nays shall be considered as ordered on the question of adoption of the 
conference report and on any subsequent conference report or motion to 
dispose of an amendment between the houses on H.R. 1836. Clause 5(b) of 
rule XXI shall not apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or conference 
reports thereon.
                                                  House Calendar No. 36

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 153

                          [Report No. 107-85]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 1836) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2002.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 25, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### § 373.100 Applicability.

This subpart applies to motor carriers subject to 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B (secs. 13101-14916).

[81 FR 68345, Oct. 4, 2016]
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.

§ 386.55 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) *Convening.* At any time before the hearing begins, the administrative law judge, on his/her own motion or on motion by a party, may direct the parties or their counsel to participate with him/her in a prehearing conference to consider the following: ( 1 ) Simplification and clarification of the issues;
( 2 ) Necessity or desirability of amending pleadings;
( 3 ) Stipulations as to the facts and the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Issuance of and responses to subpoenas;
( 5 ) Taking of depositions and the use of depositions in the proceedings;
( 6 ) Orders for discovery, inspection and examination of premises, production of documents and other physical objects, and responses to such orders;
( 7 ) Disclosure of the names and addresses of witnesses and the exchange of documents intended to be offered in evidence; and
( 8 ) Any other matter that will tend to simplify the issues or expedite the proceedings.
( b ) *Order.* The administrative law judge shall issue an order which recites the matters discussed, the agreements reached, and the rulings made at the prehearing conference. The order shall be served on the parties and filed in the record of the proceedings.
Letter from FINOVA to Glenn E. Gray dated February 20, 2004.



 Exhibit 10.P.1 
  
 [FINOVA letterhead] 
  
 February 20, 2004 
  
 Dear Glenn Gray, 
  
 This letter includes
information concerning the bonus you have been awarded for 2003, any 2004 salary change and severance. 
  
 Salary 
  
 Effective March 1, 2004
your salary will be increased by a 2% cost of living adjustment. 
  
 2003
Bonus  
  
 As advised by Tom Mara you have been awarded $600,000.00
bonus. 
  
 Severance 
  
 1. Base severance - in the event you are involuntarily terminated for reasons other than
cause or performance, you will be eligible to receive severance pay in a lump sum, less applicable taxes, equal to 78 weeks of base salary. 
  
 2. In recognition of your contribution during 2003, in addition to the base severance pay detailed in (1) above, you will receive another 35.7 weeks of severance. You
will have the opportunity to be awarded additional severance weeks for future years. Participation in this program is discretionary and based upon the criticality of your position and your performance. 
  
 COBRA  
  
 The Company will pay COBRA premiums (medical only) on your behalf for a period of time equal to 18 months. You must be a participant in the
medical plan at the time you are terminated, enroll in the plan through ADP’s COBRA administration, and send a copy of the enrollment material to ADP to receive this benefit. The additional severance weeks granted to you for 2003 in item (2)
above will not be eligible for Company paid COBRA premiums nor will any additional weeks granted in the future through this program. 
  
 Career Continuation Counseling  
  
 You will also receive career-planning services to help you obtain future employment. Details of this benefit will be communicated at that time. 
  
 Resignations and Terminations for Cause or Performance  
  
 If you voluntarily resign or are terminated for cause or performance at any time, you are
not eligible to receive severance benefits. 
  
 Nothing in this letter
forms a contract of employment for any specific duration or on any specific terms and FINOVA retains the right to terminate your employment at any time. 
  
 This letter is subject to the terms of applicable policies and the specific plans relating to the matters notes above, such as FINOVA’s Severance Pay Plan, Enhanced
Severance Plans, the Annual Bonus Plans and the Employee Severance and Bonus Trusts, which are incorporated by reference. If those policies or plans conflict with this letter, the terms most beneficial to the employee shall rule. 







 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 480-636-6544. 
  
 Sincerely, 
 /s/ Susan DeFelice 
 Susan DeFelice 
 Director Benefits & HR
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

MONAHAN, STEPHENS, and DEERWESTER

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Isaiah C. DEAN

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202000130

Decided: 25 November 2020

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

John P. Norman

Sentence adjudged 27 February 2020 by a general court-martial 

convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 24 months, and a dishonorable 

discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Commander W. Scott Stoebner, JAGC, USN

For Appellee:

Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).
United States v. Dean, NMCCA No. 202000130

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred. Uniform Code of Military Justice arts. 59, 66, 10 U.S.C. 

§§ 859, 866.

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.1

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

1 We note that, as the result of an apparent scrivener’s error, the “flapped” 

referral blocks for both the charge sheet preferred on 26 August 2019 and the charge 

sheet preferred on 16 September 2019 were transposed. Because we can discern no 

prejudice to Appellant, no corrective action is necessary.
§ 37.149 Disapproved plans. ( a ) If a plan is disapproved in whole or in part, FTA will specify which provisions are disapproved. Each entity shall amend its plan consistent with this information and resubmit the plan to the appropriate FTA Regional Office within 90 days of receipt of the disapproval letter.
( b ) Each entity revising its plan shall continue to comply with the public participation requirements applicable to the initial development of the plan (set out in § 37.137 of this part).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52157-52158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4484]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Developing Centers for 
Innovation in Services and Intervention Research (PAR-05-144).
    Date: December 4, 2007.
    Open: 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 
Fishers Lane, Rm 3039, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, Chief, Extramural 
Project Branch Review, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & 
Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 
3039, Rockville, MD 20852. 301-443-9737, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a2a1b5b4a9b3b4a180ada1a9aceeaea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ffdfeeaebf6ecebfedff2fef6f3b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 52158]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 5, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4484 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 06-10005

Non-Argument Calendar

_______________________

In The Matter Of: JOHN C. BAUM; LINDA D. BAUM

Debtors.

_______________________________

JOHN C. BAUM; LINDA D. BAUM,

Appellants,

versus

FIRST COLEMAN NATIONAL BANK,

Appellee.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(USDC No. 6:05-CV-35-SRC)

__________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
47.5.4.

2

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’sfinding that FirstColeman National

Bank (the “Bank”) held valid liens against the Baums’ property and lawfully foreclosed its

deed of trust, despite the homestead character of the property. The Baums appeal. We

affirm for the following reasons:

1. The Bank’s deed of trustsecured a purchase money lien and a mechanic’slien

that the Bank obtained from the Allens and Signature Building, respectively,

in consideration for proceeds from the Bank’s loan to the Baums. 

2. Purchase money and improvement indebtedness fall outside the homestead

protection. TEX. CONST. art. XVI, § 50(a).

3. That a deed of trust secures more debt than may be executed against a piece

of property does not impair a trustee’s sale under the deed of trust. Gregory

v. Sunbelt Sav., F.S.B., 835 S.W.2d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, writ

denied).

4. To the extent the Baums’ brief can be read to raise any other arguments, such

arguments are waived for failure to present them to the bankruptcy court, see

In re Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 6 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th Cir. 1993), or for

inadequate briefing, see L & A Contracting Co. v. Southern Concrete Servs.

Inc., 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994).
3

AFFIRMED.
#### Boswell v. The St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, *Appellant.*

Assessment of Damages in an Action of Tort record entries. This case differs from the case of *Snider v. Railway Co. ante,*p. 465, in this, that a bill of exceptions in this case contained a statement that “ the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove hfs claim for damages,” and also a statement that “ the court found the issues for the plaintiff.” *Held,*that these recitals, fairly construed, showed that the finding of the court as to the amount of recovery was based upon evidence heard in the cause. The judgment was, therefore, affirmed. .

*Appeal from Bollinger Circuit Court.*— Hon. J. B. Robinson, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Smith § Krauthoff*with *W. R. Donaldson*for appellant.

*Cahoon Whybarh*for respondent.

Henry, J.

This record presents the same questions which were considered and determined in *Snider v. The St. Louis, Iron Mountain Southern Ry. Co., ante,*p. 465, with this difference, that in this there was a bill of exceptions, in which, although the evidence is not preserved in full, it is stated that “the plaintiff- introduced evidence tending to prove his claim for damages for killing the stock sued for,” and that “the court found the issues for the plaintiff.” Evidence tending to prove plaintiff’s claim for damages would tend to prove the amount; for that was an impor*471tant element of Ms claim. This is not a forced construction of the. statement, in view of the commendable practice of abbreviating in bills of exception by stating, instead of inserting all the evidence, that it tended to prove certain facts. Upon the whole record, one part of which imports the same absolute verity as another, then, there was no error, it appearing that the court heard evidence as to the amount of damages. In other words, taking the whole record, we cannot say that no evidence was beard by the court, sitting as a jury, which authorized the finding on the question of damages. And if the statement in the judgment is to be regarded as contradicting that in the bill of exceptions, then the record must be treated as silent on the subject to which the contradiction relates ; for it cannot be said that the one rather than the other is true; and if the record is to be taken as silent on the subject to which the contradiction relates, then the judgment must stand. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
#### Alfred E. Vass, Individually, and as Executor of Jennie S. Vass, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Gertrude V. Sturdevant, Appellant, and Chester Marshall et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

*Vass*v. Marshall, 134 App. Div. 945, affirmed.

(Argued January 5, 1911;

decided January 24, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered November 1, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of respondents herein entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for the construction of the will of Jennie S. Vass, deceased.

*Frank E. Sweetser*and *Roberts Walker*for appellant.

*Alexander S. Bacon*for plaintiff, respondent.

*George K. Jack*and *Jerry A. Wernberg*for defendants, respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, and Collin, JJ.
From: Sslklein [mailto:sslklein@aol.com] 

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:10 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

We are writing in support of the fiduciary standard rule and Fee-Only planning. Our financial advisor, 

Tracy St. John, is a Fee-Only advisor, and we have been very pleased with her fiduciary advice as we 

navigate our recent retirement. Ms. St. John is a Garrett Planning Network advisor, and we have worked 

with her for almost two years. Our previous Fee-Only financial advisor was also with Garrett Planning 

Network, and we had worked very successfully with this gentleman for four years before he retired.

We are very pleased with Ms. St. John and are very confident that she is managing our assets for our 

benefit rather than her own profit. We feel that she makes every effort to have an ethical relationship with 

us and with her guidance we will have a happy and successful retirement.

Thank you.

Susan and Steven Klein

5721 Lowell St.

Overland Park, KS 66202
§ 37.29 Private entities providing taxi service. ( a ) Providers of taxi service are subject to the requirements of this part for private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people which provide demand responsive service.
( b ) Providers of taxi service are not required to purchase or lease accessible automobiles. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile, the vehicle is required to be accessible unless the provider demonstrates equivalency as provided in § 37.105 of this part. A provider of taxi service is not required to purchase vehicles other than automobiles in order to have a number of accessible vehicles in its fleet.
( c ) Private entities providing taxi service shall not discriminate against individuals with disabilities by actions including, but not limited to, refusing to provide service to individuals with disabilities who can use taxi vehicles, refusing to assist with the stowing of mobility devices, and charging higher fares or fees for carrying individuals with disabilities and their equipment than are charged to other persons.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Standardupdate [electronic resource].**** 
SuDocNumber: EP 1.132:
ItemNumber:0431-J-37(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000584992
 
1999
Spring
Summer
Fall
2000
Spring
Summer
Winter
2001
Spring
Summer
2002
Summer
Winter
 **
IV

House Calendar No. 12

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 104

[Report No. 107–31]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to amend the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 to reduce the marriage penalty by providing for adjustments to the standard deduction, 15-percent rate bracket, and earned

income credit and to allow the nonrefundable personal credits against

regular and minimum tax liability.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to amend

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the marriage penalty by providing for adjustments to the standard deduction, 15-percent rate bracket, and earned income credit and to allow the nonrefundable personal

credits against regular and minimum tax liability.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6) to amend
2

HRES 104 RH

1 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the marriage

2 penalty by providing for adjustments to the standard de3 duction, 15-percent rate bracket, and earned income credit

4 and to allow the nonrefundable personal credits against

5 regular and minimum tax liability. The bill shall be consid6 ered as read for amendment. The amendment rec7 ommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now

8 printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The pre9 vious question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,

10 as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to

11 final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one

12 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided

13 and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

14 member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the

15 further amendment printed in the report of the Committee

16 on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Rep17 resentative Rangel of New York or his designee, which

18 shall be in order without intervention of any point of

19 order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately

20 debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by

21 the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to

22 recommit with or without instructions.

House Calendar No. 12

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 104

[Report No. 107–31]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to

amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the marriage penalty by providing for adjustments to the standard deduction, 15-percentrate bracket, and earned income credit and toallow the nonrefundable personal credits againstregular and minimum tax liability.

MARCH 28, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
1210-AB32-2-1442.html[7/26/2015 5:14:41 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwd-6940

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-1938

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave my retirement alone!!! I earned it not you!!!