alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.445 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *Status generally.* A recipient shall not apply any rule concerning a student's actual or potential parental, family, or marital status that treats students differently on the basis of sex.
( b ) *Pregnancy and related conditions.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.
( 2 ) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a physician that the student is physically and emotionally able to continue participation as long as such a certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician.
( 3 ) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
( 4 ) Subject to § 25.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
( 5 ) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT B R IAN EDWARD M ALNES,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. B AYERISC HE M O TOREN W ERKE AG, (B M W AG); e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16296 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-08211-M HB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na M ic he lle H. B urns, M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 *** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. B rian Edwa

rd M a lne s a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in



# FIL ED DEC 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** M a lne s c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

* * * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , M a lne s’ re que s t for ora l argum e nt, se t forth in his re

ply brie f, is de nie d.his a c tion a lle ging viola t ions of fe de ra l a

nd sta te la w re late d to his c ar batte ry . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the c om

p la int for fa ilure to sta

te a c la i m unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Ginge r

y v . C ity of Gle ndale , 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th C ir. 2016). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba sis fa irly

supporte d by

the re c o rd. Lak

eW ash. Sc h. Dist. N

o. 414 v . Offic eof Supe rinte nde nt of Pub. Instruc t ion , 634 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of M a lne s’ a c t ion wa s prope r be c a use ve nue in the Distric t of Ariz ona wa s im

p rope r. M a l ne s ha s not e sta b l ishe d tha

t a ll de fe nda

nts a re re side nts of Ariz o na

or tha t “ a substa

ntia l pa rt of the e ve nts or omissions giving rise to [his] c la im [s] ” oc c urre d in Ariz ona . 28 U.S.C . § 1391(b)(1) & (2) (de sc ribing whe re a c ivil a c tion m ay

be brought). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 2 9 6 2
-----Original Message----- 

From: mrotwins@yahoo.com [mailto:mrotwins@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:04 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Michael R. Olson 

E4403 Mehner Lane 

Viroqua, WI 54665
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60772

In re: SHAWN BURTON,

Movant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:15-CV-724

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shawn Burton, Mississippi prisoner # 82975, has filed a request for a 

certificate of appealability (COA), which we construe as a notice of appeal from 

the district court’s order transferring Burton’s second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 

application to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, and as a motion seeking 

authorization to file a successive § 2254 application.

The district court transferred Burton’s § 2254 application challenging his 

robbery conviction to this court for a determination whether a successive 

application should be allowed. Burton has not met the requirements for filing 

a successive § 2254 application. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Accordingly, leave to file a successive application is DENIED, and the 

transfer order is AFFIRMED. Burton’s motion for a COA is DENIED as 

 

* 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. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60772 Document: 00513351824 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2016
No. 15-60772

2

unnecessary. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 431 (2015).

 Case: 15-60772 Document: 00513351824 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2016
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER REQUIRED BY
RULE 13A-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Quality Systems, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   By:
    /s/ Paul HoltDate: November 3, 2009
    
    Paul A. Holt,Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**Sa n Antonio, Texas** 

April 12, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00176

- CR

Iliana ARCHULETA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR3479A Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Defendant pled nolo contendre to “injury to child

- SBI

- omission” and was sentenced within the terms of a plea bargain. Defendant timely filed a general notice of appeal. The trial court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal states this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defenda nt has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by defendant; therefore, the trial court ’s certification accurately reflects that defendant’s case is a plea bargain case and defendant does not have a right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2).

“In a plea bargain case . . . a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raise d by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court's permission to appeal.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record does not contain a written motion ruled on before trial nor does it indicate the trial court granted defendant permission to appeal. This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made a part of the record.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d).

It is therefore ORDERED this appeal will b e dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification that shows defendant has the right of appeal has been made part of the appellate record by May 13, 2016

. See Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (T ex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); 37.1.All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sai d court on this 12th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4320 EZEQUIEL ANDAYA-DUARTE; JAVIER

SANCHEZ-DUARTE, a/k/a Javier

Duarte-Sanchez,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-342)

Submitted: December 21, 2001

Decided: January 24, 2002

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Benjamin D. Porter, MORROW, ALEXANDER, TASH, KURTZ &

PORTER, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellants. Benjamin

H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant

United States Attorney, Bradley Staley, Third Year Law Student,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Ezequiel Andaya-Duarte and Javier Sanchez-Duarte were charged

with conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and possession

with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride. Andaya-Duarte was

additionally charged with illegally re-entering the United States after

deportation. After the district court denied their motion to suppress,

Defendants pled guilty to the charges, reserving their right to appeal

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Andaya-Duarte

and Sanchez-Duarte were sentenced to a total of 148 months and 134

months imprisonment, respectively. 

On appeal, Defendants claim that their encounter with the police

officers in the parking lot constituted a seizure for purposes of the

Fourth Amendment that was unsupported by reasonable suspicion.

They thus claim that the evidence found during the search of their

property should have been suppressed as tainted fruit of the illegal

seizure. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion

to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the legal determinations

de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).

When a suppression motion has been denied, review of the evidence

is made in the light most favorable to the government. United States

v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). 

We have reviewed the briefs, the material submitted in the joint

appendix, and the transcript of the district court’s hearing on the

motion to suppress. We find that the district court properly concluded

that even assuming Defendants’ encounter with the police constituted

a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. See J.A. at 178-95. Hence, we find no

error in the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. 

Accordingly, we affirm Andaya-Duarte’s and Sanchez-Duarte’s

convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument because

2 UNITED STATES v. ANDAYA-DUARTE
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. ANDAYA-DUARTE 3
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0815.html[7/21/2015 2:55:06 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-vu1e

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-0815

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Rachael Beaver

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan my own retirement, I will to take my money out of my 401k if I'm not allowed to use

 it any way I choose.

 It's my money not the governments, keep your hands in your own pockets and stay out of my business.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0801.html[7/21/2015 1:05:17 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-p4pt

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-0801

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: George Kilgore

Address:

129 Thompson Drive

Vincent, AL, 35178

Email: rgkilgore713@hotmail.com

Phone: 2052918844

General Comment

I would like to make my own decisions on my retirement plans. I do not want interference from government 

red tape, or someone telling me what i can do and not do with earned IRA or 401K money.

Enough of the regulations, i want to clear out all the tax laws no one can understand, along with all 

the K street lobbyists made rules/
§ 526.5 Earning offsetting monetary credits in future model years. Each plan submitted under section 502(l) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act must contain the following information: ( a ) Projected average fuel economy and production levels for the class of automobiles which may fail to comply with a fuel economy standard and for any other classes of automobiles from which credits may be transferred, for the current model year and for each model year thereafter ending with the last year covered by the plan.
( b ) A list and full description of each planned product action (e.g., new model, mix change) which will affect the average fuel economy of the class of automobiles subject to the credit earning plan, for each model year beginning with the current model year and ending with the last year covered by the credit earning plan.
( c ) The portion of the petitioner's fleet affected by each product action (e.g., all K-cars with 6-cylinder engines) and the number of affected vehicles.
( d ) The fuel economy effect of each product action specified under paragraph (b) of this section per affected vehicle.
[47 FR 7248, Feb. 18, 1982, as amended at 59 FR 25576, May 17, 1994]
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 Justice

###### Parole Commission

I, Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. The purpose of the meeting was to decide two petitions for reconsideration pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 2.27. Four Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.

Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by vote of the Commission present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., and Patricia Cushwa.

*In witness whereof,*                     I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public.                

Dated: January 25, 2007.

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,

Chairman, Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-456 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1511.html[7/23/2015 12:25:44 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-qhj9

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-1511

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Mary Stout

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan my own retirement.
H. Res. 254

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 9, 2001.

Whereas each year, approximately 1,000,000 pregnancies in

the United States end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the

death of a newborn baby;

Whereas it is a great tragedy to lose the life of a child;

Whereas babies sometimes live within or outside their mothers’ wombs for only a short period of time;

Whereas even the shortest lives are still valuable, and the

grief of those who mourn the loss of these lives should

not be trivialized;

Whereas more than 35 States have designated October 15,

2001, as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day;

Whereas the observance of Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day can give validation to those who have

lost a baby through miscarriage, stillbirth, or other complications;

Whereas Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day will

provide the people of the United States with an opportunity to increase their understanding of the great tragedy involved in the deaths of unborn and newborn babies;

and
2

•HRES 254 EH

Whereas Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day will

enable the people of the United States to consider how,

as individuals and communities, they can meet the needs

of bereaved mothers, fathers, and family members and

work to prevent the causes of these deaths: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports

the goals of Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day.

Attest:

Clerk.