alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 25, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attention: Conflict of Interest Rule

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Proposed Rule Regarding the Definition of the Term “Fiduciary:” Conflict of 

Interest Rule – Retirement Investment Advice

RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing regarding the Proposed Rule referenced above that was published in the 

Federal Register on April 20, 2015, Volume 80 at 21928. I strongly support the 

Department of Labor’s efforts to enhance the definition of “fiduciary” in order to protect 

Retirement Plans and Participants from conflicts of interest and biased advice. 

Given my support, I believe that one portion of the Proposed Rule – contained in 

Paragraph (b) (3) – could be modified to better meet the Department of Labor’s 

objectives. Specifically, I am concerned with the broad carve-out from fiduciary status 

for platform providers that merely market and make available investment alternatives to 

Retirement Plans. My concern is that the proposed carve-out does not adequately protect 

Retirement Plans and Participants from the conflicts of interest that are prevalent among 

platform providers. 

My views are in full accordance with a letter you received on July 21 from Martin E. 

Lybecker of Perkins Coie LLP on this same subject. In that letter, Mr. Lybecker cites an 

academic study entitled “It Pays to Set the Menu: Mutual Fund Investment Options in 

401(k) Plans.” This study demonstrates that platform providers tend to favor their own 

affiliated mutual funds, even when those affiliated funds perform poorly and that 

Participants are unlikely to overcome this affiliation bias when selecting their 

investments. I would like to add that this study will soon be published by the Journal of 

Finance, a highly-respected academic journal. In addition, an adapted version of this 

study written for a broad lay audience will be published by the Center for Retirement 

Research at Boston College, which I direct.
2

I would also like to cite one additional academic study relevant to the topic. The study –

entitled “Participant Reaction and the Performance of Funds Offered by 401(k) Plans” –

was published in the Journal of Financial Intermediation. It also finds that 401(k) menu

selection matters. The results show that the funds chosen by 401(k) plan administrators 

achieve investment returns that are worse than comparable indexes.

My hope is that the Department of Labor will accept the specific suggestions outlined by 

Mr. Lybecker, which I believe have broad support, and modify the Proposed Rule 

accordingly.

Respectfully submitted,

Alicia H. Munnell 

Director

Center for Retirement Research at Boston College
CLERKOF THE SUPREME COURT ELIZABETHA.BRO BY: No. 85563



# FILE DEC 1 3 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ORDER DISMISSINGAPPEAL Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal of this appeal is granted to the following extent. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED.

cc: ChiefJudge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Kathy A. Hardcastle, Senior Judge Blatnik Law, LLC Briana Price Eighth District Court Clerk JONATHAN FURLOW,Appellant, VS. BRIANA PRICE, Respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERWS ORDER CO) 1, 747 coagp 

# 22-36)101QC
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1521.html[7/23/2015 12:32:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-sxvv

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-1521

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: William Wasson

General Comment

To whom this may concern:

Keep your hands off my retirement. Social security is a failed program that was managed by the government.

 What makes me think the statist can better manage my retirement. Who has the most interest in seeing my

 retirement plan succeed? Me! That's who. Stop trying to control/destroy the middle class!

Regards,

William Wasson
#### § 512.14 Who makes the confidentiality determination?

The Chief Counsel will determine whether an item of information will be afforded confidential treatment under this part.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1117.html[7/22/2015 12:01:21 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-t3yd

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-1117

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: An American citizen fed up with Feds intruding in our lives

General Comment

Who the hell does the government think they are, trying to control OUR personnel money, investnents and

 retirement funds. It is not any of your business how we spend our money, butt out.

The feds need to do what the constitutuon allows it to do and no more.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                         EXTRACTED FROM THE COASTAL CORPORATION FORM 10-K ANNUAL
                         REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
                         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                         FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              44
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,924
<PP&E>                                          13,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,038
<BONDS>                                          4,798
<COMMON>                                            73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,123
<SALES>                                          8,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,312
<CGS>                                            5,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    673
<INCOME-TAX>                                       174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       499
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.30


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-37920 and No. 33-5485) and in the post-effective
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-276435) of
Transitional Hospitals Corporation (formerly Community Psychiatric Centers) of
our report dated January 24, 1997 appearing on page 28 of this Form 10-K. We
also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statement Schedule, which appears on page 50 of this Form 10-K.
 
Price Waterhouse LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
February 25, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul Gangy, Appellant.

Judgment reversed; new rial ordered.
1210-AB32-2-1371.html[7/26/2015 2:46:00 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw0-zr4e

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-1867

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Louis Fahrbach

General Comment

I'm smart enough to work with advisors to plan my own retirement. Stay out of my business. If you are going to

 enact a law at least have OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO IT. NOT UNELECTED BEAURCRATS !
#### Florence McPherson v. Patrick Rollin and others.

Memorandum of decision modified by adding thereto, after the words “ with costs,,r the words “ of the appeal to the plaintiff, and also to the defendant Ida McPherson, to be paid by the appellant.”
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/1/15 9:39 AM

Received: April 29, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ikh-1hc8

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0256

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Marcia Kyral

Address: 

15936 Ray Drive

Larkspur, CO, 80118

General Comment

Why limit fiduciary responsibility to just advising on retirement plans and IRAs? Why shouldn't 

the client's best interest be considered in all advice, whether it pertains to a qualified plan or 

non-qualified investing? 

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ac28b4&format=xml&showo... 5/1/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,222
<PP&E>                                          16,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,876
<BONDS>                                          4,921
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           307
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,877
<SALES>                                         21,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,603
<CGS>                                           12,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,362
<INCOME-TAX>                                        36
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,398
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,398
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to [SECTION]906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of his knowledge:  1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in
the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union
Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


/s/ Kenneth D. Gibbons
----------------------
Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer


May 13, 2005


<PAGE>  33
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1338.html[7/22/2015 10:36:09 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvh-a0ra

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-1338

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Barry Udcoff

Address:

81628 Avenida Perito

Indio, 92203

General Comment

I'm already retired. Good for me. But if I wasn't and the DOL

wanted to get into my Personal Finances I would exit stage left, close my accounts, relinquish my US Citizenship

 & spend the rest of my days in Belize & Switzerland.

Over and Out.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00233

- CV
Super Starr International, LLC, Lance Peterson, Red Starr, SPR de R.L. de C.V., and Kemal Mert Gumus v. Fresh Texas Produce, LLC, Individually and derivatively on behalf of Tex Starr Distributing, LLC

O n Appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 4741

- 16

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court ord ers the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s, Super Starr International, LLC, Lance Peterson, Red Starr, SPR de R.L. de C.V., and Kemal Mert Gumus. We further order this decision certified below for o bservance. April 18, 2019
###### Editorial Note on Part 365

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 365 appear at 66 FR 49870, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 365.117 Obtaining a copy of the application.

After publication, interested persons may request a copy of the application by contacting the FMCSA-designated contract agent (as identified in the *FMCSA Register*).
#### § 29.914 How does a Tribe file a Contract Disputes Act claim?

A Tribe must submit its claim in writing to the Self-Governance Official, who serves as the Department's awarding official for the purposes of Contract Disputes Act claims. The Self-Governance Official will document the receipt of the claim.
#### Joseph M. Blake, Respondent, v. Frederick Goetzman and another, Appellants.

Order reversed and motion granted, provided in twenty days defendant stipulates to admit the plaintiff sought employment with diligence *642and did not find it, and pay costs and printing disbursements; otherwise denied, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Order to be settled by Landon, J.; Bockes, J., not acting.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1071.html[7/22/2015 7:28:32 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-wz1k

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-1071

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Jozwiak

General Comment

I can plan my own retirement!
###### Editorial Note on Part 192

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

#### § 192.949 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.25

                SUMMARY OF 2006 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

The non-employee directors of the Company and the Bank will each be paid, in
aggregate, an annual retainer of $2,000. Non-employee directors of the Company
and the Bank will also receive a fee of $250 for each meeting of the Board of
Directors or a committee of the Board of Directors that they attend. The
Chairman of the Board of the Bank is to receive an additional $150 for each
meeting of the Board of Directors that he chairs. All committee chairmen will
receive an additional $50 for each committee meeting that they chair. When
meetings are held on the same day of the Boards of Directors of the Company and
the Bank, or committees of the Company and the Bank performing similar
functions, directors usually receive only one meeting and chairperson fee for
the two Board or committee meetings.
###### Editorial Note on Part 393

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 393 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 393.23 Power supply for lamps.

All required lamps must be powered by the electrical system of the motor vehicle with the exception of battery powered lamps used on projecting loads.

[70 FR 48046, Aug. 15, 2005]
_____________

No. 94-4054EA

_____________

Danny L. Ball; *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

John L. Grigsby, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, *

Arkansas Department of * Appeal from the United States

Correction; PHP Healthcare, * District Court for the Eastern

Inc.; Dr. Jackie Wade, * District of Arkansas.

Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Dr. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jay Owens, Cummins Unit, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Delois Ford, Unit *

Nurse, Originally sued as "Mrs. *

Ford"; Sue Guirl, Warden; Lt. *

Roger Ferrell, Mississippi *

County Work Release Center, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: May 16, 1996

 Filed: July 1, 1996

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Danny L. Ball appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Having reviewed de novo the evidence presented at a pretrial evidentiary

hearing to determine whether Ball's case would survive a motion for

judgment as a matter of law, see Hobbs v.
-2-

Lockhart, 46 F.3d 864, 868 (8th Cir. 1995), we conclude Ball's evidence did

not establish a jury question on his claim the defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to Ball's serious medical needs when they delayed

sending him to an oral surgeon. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976).

Ball failed to show any personal involvement on the part of the

Arkansas Department of Correction employees, PHP Healthcare, Inc. (PHP),

and PHP Nurse Delois Ford in denying or delaying his medical treatment.

Ball cannot predicate his Eighth Amendment claim against these defendants

on a risk of harm of which they were unaware or on a respondent superior

theory. Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968-69 (8th Cir. 1995).

Ball's testimony established he saw PHP Dentist Jackie Wade for tooth

pain only once. Wade prescribed penicillin for two abscesses, and Ball did

not seek treatment again until several months later. At that time, PHP

Dentist Jay Owens told Ball he had two abscesses and an impacted wisdom

tooth, prescribed penicillin and pain relievers, and ultimately referred

Ball to an outside oral surgeon who removed six of Ball's teeth. Ball

produced no evidence that Wade or Owens intentionally delayed Ball's

treatment or his referral to a specialist. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-

05. The only damage Ball attributed to the delay in his dental surgery was

pain, and Ball's testimony showed his pain relief was compromised because

he shared his pain medication with another inmate. Further, at oral

argument, Ball's counsel conceded that Ball would have been pain free if

he had taken all of his pain medication. Thus, Ball's Eighth Amendment

claim fails because Ball did not suffer any detrimental effects from the

delay in medical treatment. See Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326-27

(8th Cir. 1995).

We affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.