alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

# FILED
October 3, 1995 Cecil Crowson, Jr
. App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

CHARLES WILLIAM COULTER and ) C/A NO. 03A01-9505-CH-00150 wife DONNA LEE COULTER, ) HAMILTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ) Plaintiffs-Appellants,) ) ) ) v. ) HONORABLE HOWELL N. PEOPLES, ) CHANCELLOR ) ) RICHARD ANTHONY HENDRICKS, ) ) Defendant-Appellee. )

CONCURRING OPINION
I concur wholeheartedly in the majority opinion. I write separately to address the plaintiffs' contention that their sister married Richard Anthony Hendricks "in jest." Even assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the common law requirement of mutual intent to be bound is still a requirement for a valid marriage in Tennessee, an allegation that the parties married in jest is conclusory in nature. Furthermore, it is not supported in the complaint by factual allegations and hence not conceded to be true by the defendant's motion to dismiss. Such a pleading admits well-pled facts, not conclusions of the pleader. See Swallows v. Western Electric Co., Inc. , 543 S.W.2d 581, 583 (Tenn. 1976); Dobbs v. Guenther , 846 S.W.2d 270, 273 (Tenn. App. 1992). Therefore, the conclusory allegation of a marriage in jest does not render the trial court's action of dismissal inappropriate. The well-pled facts, liberally construed in favor of the plaintiffs, do not make out a cause of action.2 ______________________________ Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.
From: Culligan, Kevin

Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:27 PM To: 'Greenwald, Judith' Subject: follow-up on BSER and BACT - from PADEP comments o n 111(b) rule - feel free to call me (202)- 564-0611 - I will be here for a while
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.297 Does anyone have the authority to change a SAP's initial evaluation? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no one (*e.g.,* an employer, employee, a managed-care provider, any service agent) may change in any way the SAP's evaluation or recommendations for assistance. For example, a third party is not permitted to make more or less stringent a SAP's recommendation by changing the SAP's evaluation or seeking another SAP's evaluation.
( b ) The SAP who made the initial evaluation may modify his or her initial evaluation and recommendations based on new or additional information (*e.g.,* from an education or treatment program).
( c ) The SAP, who is otherwise fully qualified under this subpart, must not perform evaluations outside the geographic jurisdiction for their credential(s). If the SAP who made the evaluation exceeds their geographic jurisdiction, the employee will not be required to seek the evaluation of a second SAP.
[65 FR 79526, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 88 FR 27650, May 2, 2023]
§ 246.101 Certification program required. ( a ) Each railroad subject to this part shall have a written signal employee certification program.
( b ) Each certification program shall include all of the following: ( 1 ) If applicable, an explanation and discussion of the occupational categories and subcategories of certified signal service that comply with the requirements in § 246.107;
( 2 ) A procedure for evaluating prior safety conduct as a motor vehicle operator that complies with the criteria established in § 246.111;
( 3 ) A procedure for evaluating prior safety conduct as an employee or certified signal employee with other railroads that complies with the criteria established in § 246.113;
( 4 ) A procedure for evaluating potential substance abuse disorders and compliance with railroad alcohol and drug rules that complies with the criteria established in § 246.115;
( 5 ) A procedure for evaluating visual and hearing acuity that complies with the criteria established in §§ 246.117 and 246.118;
( 6 ) A procedure for training that complies with the criteria established in § 246.119;
( 7 ) A procedure for qualifying persons on its signal system and signal-related technology that complies with the criteria established in § 246.120;
( 8 ) A procedure for knowledge testing that complies with the criteria established in § 246.121;
( 9 ) A procedure for monitoring operational performance that complies with the criteria established in § 246.123; and
( 10 ) A procedure for mentoring uncertified signal employees that complies with the criteria established in § 246.124.
( c ) Each certification program shall be version controlled. Any change from the previous FRA-approved version of the certification program must be tracked.
May 19, 2015

By e-mail: e-ORI@dol.gov 

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Comment Period for Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”, RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Sir or Madam:

On behalf of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) and our 

more than 100,000 members nationwide, I am writing today to request an extension of 

the 75-day comment period with respect to the proposed new definition of a fiduciary. 

This proposal has the potential to have a very adverse effect on our small business and 

entrepreneur members across the country, and their ability to provide for a secure 

retirement for their employees.

SBE Council is a voice and advocate for entrepreneurs and small business owners. We 

focus on advancing policies and initiatives that encourage entrepreneurship and small 

business growth. In brief, our mission is to protect small business and promote 

entrepreneurship. Our members count on us to weigh in on issues that will impact their 

ability to compete and grow their businesses. The proposed new definition of a fiduciary 

will create harmful effects that disproportionately hurt small businesses.

As such, we ask that the 75-day comment period be extended to 120 days. We have 

begun to review this long and complex proposal and are very concerned that it could 

prevent small businesses from receiving the help they need to establish and maintain a 

retirement plan. Moreover, for those small businesses that maintain a plan, costs would 

rise, burdens would increase, and, very disturbingly, potential liabilities would grow 

dramatically.
2

In fact, in an effort to “protect” small businesses, we understand that the proposal actually 

singles out small businesses directly and restricts the provision of needed information to 

small businesses in a way that does not apply to large businesses.

This would be a step in exactly the wrong direction. Small businesses need less cost, less 

burdens, and less liability. We need more certainty and assistance, not less, in light of our 

need to focus scare resources on our business rather than on complying with complex 

regulations. We already face far greater challenges than larger businesses in maintaining 

a retirement plan, since on a per-employee basis our costs are much higher and our 

resources are much less robust.

SBE Council needs and requests more time to study the proposal and discuss these 

important issues with our members. The 75-day comment period needs to be extended.

We thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Karen Kerrigan

President & CEO

301 Maple Avenue West • Vienna, VA 22180 •(703)-242-5840 • sbecouncil.org • @SBECouncil 

 

Protecting Small Business, Promoting Entrepreneurship
###### Editorial Note on Part 451

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 451 appear at 74 FR 49241, Sept. 25, 2009, and at 77 FR 59790, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 451.18 Review of denials of approval.

(a) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of an approval authority may obtain review of the decision by the Chief, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), U.S. Coast Guard. The decision of the Chief, Office of Operating and Environmental Standards (CG-OES), U.S. Coast Guard is a final agency action.

[45 FR 37214, June 2, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 50496, Nov. 8, 1982; 69 FR 58353, Sept. 30, 2004]
Editorial Note on Part 395
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 395 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 395.36 Driver access to records. ( a ) *Records on ELD.* Drivers must be able to access their own ELD records. A motor carrier must not introduce a process that would require a driver to go through the motor carrier to obtain copies of the driver's own ELD records if such records exist on or are automatically retrievable through the ELD operated by the driver.
( b ) *Records in motor carrier's possession.* On request, a motor carrier must provide a driver with access to and copies of the driver's own ELD records unavailable under paragraph (a) of this section during the period a motor carrier is required to retain the records under § 395.8(k).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                     FORM OF DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
                               HEALTHSTREAM, INC.
                            2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

 OPTION GRANTED THIS ____ DAY OF ______, 200__ ("GRANT DATE") BY HEALTHSTREAM,
               INC. (THE "COMPANY") TO Optionee (THE "DIRECTOR").

            1. Stock Option. The Company hereby grants to the Director an option
(the "Option") to purchase up to ______ shares of the common stock of the
Company, no par value, to be issued upon the exercise of the Option, in the
manner hereafter set forth, fully paid and nonassessable. This Option is being
granted under the provisions of the Company's 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"), which are incorporated herein by reference. The Plan is administered by
the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company.

            2. Time of Exercise. This Option shall be exercisable and have a
term as follows:

                  (a) This Option shall expire on the tenth anniversary of the
      Grant Date.

                  (b) One hundred percent (100%) of the shares granted under
      this Option shall vest and become exercisable on the Grant Date.

                  (c) This Option shall be exercisable only in the lesser of
      round lots of One Hundred (100) shares or the total number of shares
      remaining under this Grant.

            3. Purchase Price. The purchase price per share shall be _____,
being not less than the fair market value of the common stock as of the Grant
Date.

            4. Rights as a Shareholder. The Director shall have no rights as a
shareholder with respect to any shares covered by this Option until the Director
has given written notice of exercise, has paid in full for such shares and taken
such other actions as may be required by the Committee in accordance with the
provisions of the Plan. No adjustment shall be made for dividends for which the
record date is prior to the date of issuance of such stock certificate.

HEALTHSTREAM, INC.

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

The undersigned:

            (a) Acknowledges receipt of the foregoing Option and the attachments
referenced therein and understands that all rights and liabilities with respect
to this Option and the Plan; and

            (b) Acknowledges that as of the date of grant of this Option, it
sets forth the entire understanding between the undersigned Director and the
Company and its Affiliates regarding the acquisition of stock in the Company
pursuant to this grant and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements on
that subject.

_____________________________________

OPTIONEE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Integrative Physiology of Obesity and Diabetes Study Section, October 4, 2007, 8 a.m. to October 5, 2007, 5 p.m., Embassy Suites DC Convention Center, 900 10th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 10, 2007, 72 FR 51649-51651.                

The meeting will be held one day only October 4, 2007. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: September 12, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4627 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10953.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ES-05-10953.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1

                    
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-2-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  OCT-3-1998
<CASH>                        2,185,199
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,731,302
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   3,341,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              11,515,099
<PP&E>                        15,657,553
<DEPRECIATION>                10,180,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                17,147,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,501,296
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      1,341,699
<OTHER-SE>                    12,793,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  17,147,719
<SALES>                       16,487,212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              16,487,212
<CGS>                         9,101,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 9,101,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              745,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,673,191
<INCOME-TAX>                  589,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,084,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .59
<FN>
(1) Adjusted to give retroactive  effect to a 10% stock dividend payable in
June 1998.  Prior Financial Data Schedules have not been restated for this stock
dividend.
</FN>

        

</TABLE>
FILED

March 9, 2000

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) C.C.A. NO. W1998-00637-CCA-R3-CD

)

vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY

)

KHANH V. LE, ) Trial No. 96-01118

)

Appellant. )

O R D E R

The lead opinion of Judge Ogle, the separate concurring opinion of Judge

Welles, and the separate opinion of Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in

part, filed in this case on March 6, 2000, are withdrawn.

A new majority opinion authored by Judge Ogle and concurred in by Judge

Welles, and a separate opinion by Judge Woodall concurring in part and dissenting in part,

attached hereto, are HEREBY ORDERED filed as the decision of the Court in this case.

Per Curium

Ogle, Welles and Woodall, J.J.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1227.html[7/22/2015 4:08:27 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-8ljd

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-1227

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Donna Cannon

General Comment

Are you kidding me? My savings, my decisions. The government needs to get the hell out of my money i have

 saved!
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-1-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,052,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    832,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,963,539
<PP&E>                                      69,466,416
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,917,064
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,347,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,585,260
<BONDS>                                     29,279,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       279,045
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,203,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,347,352
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            80,197,927
<CGS>                                       20,716,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,541,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,297,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,122,864
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,467,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                   400,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,067,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                400,000
<CHANGES>                                      239,000
<NET-INCOME>                                   428,078
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
- Page 1
- 780988_Page_2.pdf
Page 1
Editorial Note on Part 384
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 384 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 384.212 Domicile requirement. ( a ) The State may issue CDLs or CLPs only to persons for whom the State is the State of domicile as defined in § 383.5 of this subchapter; except that the State may issue a Non-domiciled CLP or CDL under the conditions specified in §§ 383.23(b), 383.71(f), and 383.73(f) of this subchapter.
( b ) The State must require any person holding a CDL issued by another State to apply for a transfer CDL from the State within 30 days after establishing domicile in the State, as specified in § 383.71(c) of this subchapter.
[76 FR 26894, May 9, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 59456, Oct. 2, 2014]
§ 26.61 Burden of proof ( a ) In determining whether to certify a firm, the certifier must apply the standards of this subpart. Unless the context indicates otherwise, singular terms include their plural forms and vice versa.
( b ) The firm has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, *i.e.,* more likely than not, that it satisfies all of the requirements in this subpart. In determining whether the firm has met its burden, the certifier must consider all the information in the record, viewed as a whole. ( 1 ) *Exception 1.* In a decertification proceeding the certifier bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the firm is no longer eligible for certification under the rules of this part.
( 2 ) *Exception 2.* If a certifier has a reasonable basis to believe that an individual who is a member of a group in § 26.67(a) of this section is not, in fact, socially and/or economically disadvantaged, the certifier bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual is not socially and/or economically disadvantaged.
[89 FR 24969, Apr. 9, 2024]
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but 1

is not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-10-00102-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE: LEOPOLDO LEAL

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

1

Relator, Leopoldo Leal, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the foregoing

causes on March 3, 2010. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

It is the relator's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient petition and record to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Specifically, for

instance, the relator must file an appendix with the petition for writ of mandamus, and the

appendix must include, inter alia, a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or

any other document showing the matter complained of. See id. 52.3(k). The relator must
2

also file a record including a “certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to

the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding,” and “a

properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding,

including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced

in connection with the matter complained.” See id. 52.7(a). Further, relator must file a

certification with the petition for the petition for writ of mandamus stating that every factual

statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or

record. See id. 52.3(j). Finally, the petition for writ of mandamus must contain a “clear and

concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and

to the appendix or record.” See id. 52.3(h).

In the instant case, relator has failed to meet these requirements and has thus failed

to provide this Court with a petition and record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus

relief. In fact, at the present time, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the relief

sought by relator. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed

this 4th day of March, 2010.