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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 175

Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 20, 2001

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating majority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of

3 the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES: Mr. Hayworth of Ari5 zona.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1224.html[7/22/2015 4:08:29 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-o8ji

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-1224

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Brooke Eubanks

General Comment

Mr. President and all whom this concerns,

This is in regards to the government controlling my 401K. I am informing you that I am quite capable of

 planning, preparing and handling my retirement myself. It is against the constitution to take this right from

 American people. Leave the 401K to those who are saving for their future.
## 2008

– 2009 Rule Effectiveness (RE) Study for Rules 310, 310.01, and 316

SUMMARY TABLES:

1. Review of 2006

‐ 2007 RE study results:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate RE Rate 2005 PM10

NAA Emissions

310 63 Targeted inspections

(administrative violations not considered) 50.79% 50.79% 32,129.85

tons

310.01 124 Targeted inspections

(all violations included) 67.74% 67.74% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor

‐ ranking; 11 Targeted inspections

form compliance rate (all violations included) 18.18% 54.36% 1,581.41

tons



### 2. Re

‐ cast 2006

‐ 2007 RE study results, using proposed 2008

‐ 2009 RE methodology options:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate* RE Rate (70)† 2005 PM10

NAA

Emissions

310 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2006

– June 2007

(all violations included) [11,335 inspects./6,078 permits] 60.61% 64.51% 24,968.00

tons

310.01 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2006

– June 2007

(all violations included) [4,564 inspects./4,212 permits] 90.36% 77.51% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2006

– June 2007

(all violations included) [129 inspects./55 permits] 44.23% 55.88% 1,567.66

tons

*”Compliance Rate” was calculated based on results from all inspection in FY2009, excluding site visits with purpose codes of

“close out” or “ineffective visit”, or inspection status codes of “unknown” (meaning no compliance determination was made

during these visits). Most sites have had multiple inspections during FY2009; thus if site had a status of “in violation” for any

of the inspections, the site was deemed to be out of compliance for purposes of calculating the “Compliance Rate”.

†”RE Rate” shows results with “Compliance Rate” weighted 70% of weight matrix



### 3. 2008

‐ 2009 RE study results:

Rule Methodology Compliance

Rate* RE Rate (70)† 2008 PM10

NAA

Emissions

310 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2008

– June 2009

(all violations included) [12,290 inspects./5,459 permits] 87.01% 82.99% 10,566.91

tons

310.01 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2008

– June 2009

(all violations included) [12,370 inspects/11,190 permits] 95.15% 80.87% RE rate used in

multiple

categories

316 Factor

‐ ranking: All inspections in July 2008

– June 2009

(all violations included) [525 inspects./136 permits] 35.29% 49.62% 944.99

tons

*”Compliance Rate” was calculated based on results from all inspection in FY2009, excluding site visits with purpose codes of

“close out” or “ineffective visit”, or inspection status codes of “unknown” (meaning no compliance determination was made

during these visits). Most sites have had multiple inspections during FY2009; thus if site had a status of “in violation” for any

of the inspections, the site was deemed to be out of compliance for purposes of calculating the “Compliance Rate”.

†”RE Rate” shows results with “Compliance Rate” weighted 70% of weight matrix



### April 19, 2010
Date: May 27, 2015

To: Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0738

From: Andrew Bouchard

Subject: Meeting Record for May 27, 2015, Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and 

ExxonMobil Chemical Company

On May 27, 2015, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

participated in a meeting with ExxonMobil Chemical Company. The purpose of the meeting was to 

discuss ExxonMobil’s comments that were submitted to the docket on the initial MPGF AMEL

notice. See Attachment 1 for the names and affiliations of the meeting participants.
Attachment 1

Participants in May 27, 2015 EPA/ExxonMobil Meeting

ExxonMobil Chemical Company Representatives

Benjamin Hurst

Gary Robbins

Erin Tullos

Margaret Bass

U.S. EPA Representatives

Andrew Bouchard

Brenda Shine

Penny Lassiter
EXHIBIT 11
 
                     Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings 
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                        March
                                               ______________________
                                                  1998         1997
                                               _________    _________

<S>                                            <C>          <C>
Primary:
   Average shares outstanding:                 1,767,064    1,764,288
 
       Net effect of the assumed
       exercise of stock options-
       based on the treasury stock
       method using average stock prices               0        2,584
                                               _________    _________
               Total                           1,767,064    1,766,872
                                               =========    =========
Net income                                     $ 550,774    $ 582,390
                                               =========    =========
Net income per share                           $    0.31    $    0.33
                                               =========    =========
 
 
 
 
 
Fully Diluted:
   Average shares outstanding:                 1,767,064    1,764,288
 
       Net effect of the assumed exercise
       of stock options based on the
       treasury stock method using
       average market price or period
       end market price, whichever is high             0        2,832
                                               ---------    ---------
               Total                           1,767,064    1,767,120
                                               =========    =========
Net income                                     $ 550,774    $ 582,390
                                               =========    =========
Net income per share                           $    0.31    $    0.33
                                               =========    =========


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.4

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Report on Form 10-K of Commonwealth Edison Company for the year ended December 31,
2002, that (i) the report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Commonwealth Edison Company.

|Date: March 21, 2003 |  | /s/PAMELA B. STROBELPamela B. Strobel
Chair
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, November 2, 1995 (139), Para 139.8 Words Taken Down]
[Pages 1829-1830]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.139.8  words taken down

  Mr. DeLAY during debate, addressed the House and, during the course of 
his remarks,
  Mr. OBEY demanded that certain words be taken down.
  By unanimous consent, the words were withdrawn.
  Accordingly,
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EWING, recognized Mr. DeLAY to proceed in 
order.
  After further debate,
  Mr. STOKES moved the previous question on the motion to instruct the 
managers on the part of the House.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House now order the previous question on said motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EWING, announced that the yeas had it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas 
and nays, which demand was supported by one-fifth of the Members 
present, so the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device.

[[Page 1830]]

It was decided in the

Yeas

231

affirmative

Nays

195
```
#### § 545.5 Definitions.

*Production year* means the 12-month period between September 1 of 2006 and August 31, 2007, inclusive.

*Small-volume line* means a line with an annual production of not more than 3,500 vehicles.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1291.html[7/22/2015 9:54:19 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-ik4t

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-1291

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Sharon Curran

Address:

2979 Indian River Dr NE

Palm Bay, FL, 32905

Email: sharjoy2011@gmail.com

Phone: 805-835-2681

General Comment

Stop government involvement in our 401K.
1

No. 06-15-00109-CR

IN The Sixth Court of Appeals

Texarkana, Texas

BRIAN LYNN PUCKETT,

Appellant,

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PURSUANT TO ANDERS v. CALIFORNIA, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967)

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES JEFF T. JACKSON, counsel for Appellant 

Brian Lynn Puckett, and hereby moves to withdraw from 

representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In support of this 

motion, counsel shows as follows:

I.

Counsel has thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, 

and, for these reasons, is thoroughly familiar with the 

case.

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/1/2015 4:04:03 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
2

II.

Counsel has, in the exercise of his professional 

judgment, determined that the instant case presents no 

non-frivolous issues for appeal, and, in accordance with 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), now so advises the court and requests 

permission to withdraw. Anders, id. at 744.

III.

In accordance with Anders, counsel has, 

contemporaneously with this motion, filed a brief 

outlining all issues which might arguably support an 

appeal and explaining why those issues are meritless. 

Anders, Id.

IV.

Counsel has furnished the appellant with a copy of 

said brief, a copy of this motion, and a letter apprising 

Appellant of counsel’s actions and Appellant’s rights 

regarding these matters.
3

V.

Having determined that the instant appeal is wholly 

frivolous, and having complied with the briefing and 

notice requirements of Anders v. California, counsel now 

requests that he be allowed to withdraw, pursuant to 

Anders.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is prayed that 

the Court grant counsel’s request and allow counsel to 

withdraw from this case, pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jeff T. Jackson

Jeff T. Jackson

SBOT No. 24069976

736-A Hwy 259 N.

Kilgore, TX 75662

Phone: 903-654-3362

Fax: 817-887-4333

Attorney for Appellant, 

Brian Lynn Puckett
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, I certify that on 

September 2nd, 2015, a copy of this motion was mailed via 

first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Van Colson Brown BRIAN LYNN PUCKETT

Gregg County District Attorney TDCJ No. 02001172

SBOT No. 03205900 Bradshaw State Jail

101 E. Methvin, Ste. 333 P.O. Box 9000

Longview, TX 75601 Henderson, TX 75653

/s/ Jeff T. Jackson

Jeff T. Jackson
**Exhibit 10.55**

 

**AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO**

**TO THE EXELON CORPORATION**

**LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN**

**(AS AMENDEDAND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 28, 2002)**

 

**WHEREAS,**ExelonCorporation (the “Company”) maintains the Exelon Corporation Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended and restated effective January 28, 2002 (the “Plan”); 

 

**WHEREAS,**pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Plan, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the“Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan, subject to certain requirements; and 

 

**WHEREAS,** the Committee has approved the adoption of this amendment to the Plan in order to avoid any adjustment in outstanding options made to reflect a change in the Company’s capitalization being treated as a newgrant for purposes of applicable accounting standards. 

 

**NOW,THEREFORE,** the Plan is amended for all outstanding awards under the Plan, effective December 4, 2006, as follows: 

 

1. The first paragraph of Section 3(c) of the Plan is amended to read as follows: 

 

“If there is any change in the number or kind of shares of Company Stock outstanding (i) by reason of a stock dividend, spinoff,recapitalization, stock split, or combination or exchange of shares, (ii) by reason of a merger, reorganization or consolidation in which the Company is the surviving corporation, (iii) by reason of a reclassification or change in parvalue, or (iv) by reason of any other extraordinary or unusual event affecting the outstanding Company Stock as a class without the Company’s receipt of consideration, or if the value of outstanding shares of Company Stock is substantiallyreduced as a result of a spinoff or the Company’s payment of an extraordinary dividend or distribution, the maximum number of shares of Company Stock available for Grants, the maximum number of shares of Company Stock that any individualparticipating in the Plan may be granted in any year, the number of shares covered by outstanding Grants, the kind of shares issued under the Plan, and the price per share or the applicable market value of such Grants shall be appropriately adjustedby the Committee to reflect any increase or decrease in the number of, or change in the kind or value of, issued shares of Company Stock to preclude, to the extent practicable, the enlargement or dilution of rights and benefits under such Grants;provided, however, that any fractional shares resulting from such adjustment shall be eliminated. Any adjustments determined by the Committee shall be final, binding and conclusive. If and to the extent that any such change in the number or kind ofshares of Company Stock outstanding is effected solely by application of a mathematical formula (e.g., a 2-for-1 stock split), the adjustment described in this Section 3(c) shall be made and shall occur automatically by application of suchformula, without further action by the Committee.” 

 

[Execution PageFollows] 

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the Company has caused this amendment to be executed this             day of             , 2006. 

 

Exelon Corporation
By:    
S. Gary Snodgrass

Executive Vice President &

Chief Human Resources Officer

 

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6762

SHAHID L.A. MAJID, a/k/a Arthur R. Moseley,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. CASSANDRA MEANS, Regional Dir.; SHERISSE D. BIRCH, CCC; DHO 

FRANCINE BACKMAN; WARDEN RANDALL WILLIAMS; ASSOC. 

WARDEN MARTELL; SCDC; IGB SHERMAN ANDERSON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

IGB JOHN DOE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (0:19-cv-01937-MGL)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Shahid L.A. Majid, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, HOOD LAW FIRM, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Shahid L.A. Majid, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting Defendants summary 

judgment in Majid’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, as well as denying his request for 

injunctive relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. 

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered the underlying judgment on March 25, 2021. Shahid’s 

proof of service reflects that Shahid filed the notice of appeal on April 27, 2021—the day 

he tendered it to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Thus, Shahid filed the notice of appeal the

day after the 30-day appeal period expired. Because Shahid failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Afghan children’s drawings express gratitude to coalition SOF medics
 By Maj. Cindi King , Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force
  A coalition medic, assigned to support special operations forces, talks about the artwork their medical clinic received from local Afghan children in Maiwand province. (Photo by Maj. Cindi King)
 “We have children visit our medical clinic all the time,” said a  medic assigned to support special operations forces. “Some of the  drawings were created by a little 7-year-old Afghan boy after we treated  his 4-year-old sister for over three months.” Bibiamina, a young Afghan girl, was taken to the clinic by her older  brother because she had a severe infection on her scalp. The medics  identified it as a form of Impetigo and began treating her. “Her infection was so bad, we had to wrap her scalp in a dressing and  see her every day for three months,” said the medic. “We nicknamed her  ‘Q-Tip’ because, when her head was covered in the gauze, she looked like  a little cotton swab.” In the course of Bibiamina’s treatment, she and her brother would  play with toys donated to them by the special operations forces medics  or draw pictures. One morning, the two children returned to the clinic  with their works of art and proudly presented them to the medics. “I was surprised to see the drawings and how much they paid attention  to us with the details in their pictures,” said the medic. One picture of a military vehicle shows the communications antennas,  the U.S. soldiers have rifles with scopes, and even chin straps on the  helmets. “We hung the pictures up so the children would see them and know how much we appreciate their artwork,” said the medic. The medics often see Bibiamina in the village and are very happy her  scalp condition is cured and her hair is growing back. When she sees the  medics, she always comes over to shake hands. These special operations  forces medics say these children are Afghanistan’s future, and perhaps  they’ll remember their kindness when they are adults. “It makes me happy we can connect with the kids,” said the special  operations forces medic. “The children are pure and there’s hope for  them.”
1210-AB32-2-1052.html[7/23/2015 3:26:39 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-plrh

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-1544

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Samuel Prinzi

General Comment

I do not want you to regulate how I handle my retirement money. I have financial advisers and am doing fine

 without you help.
From: Pamela Miles [mailto:pamiles45@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:07 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Fwd: RIN 1210-AB32 College Loan Debt, a high priced mortgages you can't live in

From: Pamela Miles <pamiles45@gmail.com>

Date: September 14, 2015 at 9:04:03 AM EDT

To: "michelle.singletary@washingtonpost.com" <michelle.singletary@washingtonpost.com>

Cc: "e-ORI@dol.giv" <e-ORI@dol.giv>

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32 College Loan Debt,

Dear Michelle,

Your recent column on the new regulations for investment advisors featured a quote from 

Labor Secretary Perez. He indicated that financial advice is just as important for young people 

as it is for soon to be retirees. Advice for young people needs to start in the college financial aid 

office. Financial aid " advisors " offer loans to students and parents that most have little hope of 

paying off based on projected earrings. National statistics estimate the average student loan rate 

to be 30k for most college students. This is misleading as some students have 0. I worked with 

low income and middle income students who assumed on average after scholarships 45k - 60k of 

college debt. The average starting salaries for these student was 45k. Even the new pay based on 

earnings student loan calculator doesn't help many middle class wage earners. Those earning 

around 55k a year with 60 K of loans are expected to pay close to $600 a month for student 

loans. A rudimentary budgeting worksheet would highlight that these students won't have the 

ability to invest for their futures because they are graduating with debt greater than the level of 

many first time home buyers. The caveat is that that you can't live in a student loan. While 

Senator Warren is addressing the student loan interest rates, her efforts don't address the real 

reason student loans are a burden, degrees are too expensive. The cost of a college education has 

little to do with education. Universities have over built facilities and over pay Presidents. The 

actual educators, the professors are barely making a living wage. Doctoral degrees are costly 

and many professors are still struggling to pay their own college loans. Financial aid officers are 

unlicensed unregulated investment sales people. The investment they sell is a college education, 

with the promise of a better future. Due diligence needs to start with these investment sales 

people. Secretary Perez is missing part of the problem, young people aren't going to be seeking 

the advice of traditional investment advisors, they have no money to invest. They were robbed 

the when they signed their student loan packages.

Thanks for your interesting columns. 

Pam Miles

Pamiles45@gmail.com