alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Paley, Alexander @ New York [mailto:Alexander.Paley@cbre.com] 

Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 11:09 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

February 10, 2011

By email delivery 

Office of Regulations and Interpretations 

Employee Benefits Security Administration 

Attn: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule 

Room N-5655 

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am pleased to submit this comment letter on the Department’s proposed regulation (the 

“Proposed Rule”) regarding the term “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). 

I am a commercial real estate broker who is employed by a full service commercial real estate 

company that offers a variety of services to our clients. I am concerned about the implications 

the Proposed Rule will have on my firm’s business practices. First, as a investment sales broker, 

my team often acts as an investment advisor for benefit plans with interests in real estate. It is 

likely under the Proposed Rule that such advice will be treated as fiduciary advice. As such, we 

will be required to institute new methods of tracking the various and numerous relationships our 

firm has with benefit plans. This will present a significant operational challenge because tracking 

“plan assets” based on ERISA’s “significant participant” or “25%” test is particularly difficult 

due to the indirect manner in which benefit plans often invest in real estate (i.e. forming Special 

Purpose Entities for holding the asset). Additionally, our firm frequently “cross sells” services to 

other business lines within our company, a practice which can often result in significant cost 

savings and other efficiencies. Under the Proposed Rule’s “first service in”, this practice would 

preclude a benefit plan from utilizing any other service within the company, even wholly 

independent lines of businesses who could offer the most economical option. I do not believe the 

intent of the Department is to preclude a benefit plan from open market opportunities and the 

ability to utilize the services of world class full service real estate firms. 

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comment. 

Respectfully, 

Alexander Paley 

 

Alexander Paley | Associate 

Investment Properties 
CB Richard Ellis | Capital Markets 

200 Park Avenue, Suite 17 | New York, NY 10166 

T 212 895 0942 | F 212 984 6660 

Alexander.Paley@cbre.com
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00104

- CV

Salina S. Wyrick

v.

Hal T. Jayson, M.D., Radiology

Associates of North Texas, P.A.,

Joey Mayor, M.D. and EmCare DFW

Emergency Physicians, PLLC. §

§

§

§ From the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant Coun ty (153

- 292369

- 17)

July 12, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the attempted appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the attempted

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal,

for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 333 Agreed to House (ATH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 333

            Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2002

Mr. Armey submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Providing for the hour of meeting of the House.

    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday, May 13, 
2002, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall be 2 p.m. on 
Mondays; 11 a.m. on Tuesdays; and 10 a.m. on all other days of the 
week; and from Monday, May 13, 2002, until the end of the second 
session, the hour of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on 
Mondays; 10 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays; and 9 a.m. on 
all other days of the week.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.7 How can you get an exemption from a requirement in this regulation? ( a ) If you want an exemption from any provision of this part, you must request it in writing from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, under the provisions and standards of 49 CFR part 5. You must send requests for an exemption to the following address: Department of Transportation, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
( b ) Under the standards of 49 CFR part 5, we will grant the request only if the request documents special or exceptional circumstances, not likely to be generally applicable and not contemplated in connection with the rulemaking that established this part, that make your compliance with a specific provision of this part impracticable.
( c ) If we grant you an exemption, you must agree to take steps we specify to comply with the intent of the provision from which an exemption is granted.
( d ) We will issue written responses to all exemption requests.
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 9:39 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

I am writing in response to the proposed rule that all financial advisors be required to act as a 

Fiduciary. My husband and I are not financial experts, which is why we have sought the advice 

of financial planners in the past, only to later discover the true cost of investments made through 

a mutual fund company and insurance company.

Last year we sought to find a financial planner who would act as a Fudiciary because we were 

unsure as to which direction to go with our investments. We researched financial planners and 

found a network of fee-only advisors, which led us to an advisor in our area. Our fee-only 

advisor, Tracy St. John, met with us at no cost to discuss our situation before we made a decision 

to use her services. She thoroughly explained our options and broke down the ACTUAL costs of 

what we were paying through the investments we had. 

We wholeheartedly support this proposed rule.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1

                    
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  Apr-3-1999
<CASH>                        1,651,741
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,123,385
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   3,323,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              10,772,247
<PP&E>                        19,516,811
<DEPRECIATION>                12,335,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                21,090,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         3,308,757
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      1,346,227
<OTHER-SE>                    11,934,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  21,090,119
<SALES>                       4,738,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,738,531
<CGS>                         2,426,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 2,426,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               332,966
<INCOME-TAX>                  120,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  212,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .12
<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>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.48

                   AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

         This Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is
made this 29th day of March, 2004 by and between R.G. BARRY CORPORATION, an Ohio
corporation having its principal place of business located at 13405 Yarmouth
Road, N.W., Pickerington, Ohio 43147 (the "Company"), and THOMAS M. VON LEHMAN,
an individual having an address of 223 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15222 (the "Executive").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an Executive
Employment Contract dated March 10, 2004 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment
Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties
expressed in this Agreement, the parties make the following amendment to the
Employment Agreement, intending to be legally bound hereby:

         1.       All capitalized terms used in this Amendment without
definition have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.

         2.       In the event the Term of the Employment Agreement ends prior
to April 30, 2005 for any reason other than the death or Disability of the
Executive or termination for Cause, the parties shall negotiate in good faith a
new agreement whereby the Company will retain the Executive as a consultant, and
the Executive will provide consulting services to the Company, for a period
ending no sooner than April 30, 2005 on terms mutually acceptable to the parties
and to The CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc ("CIT") if CIT is then a lender to
the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed on behalf of
the Company and by the Executive on the date first above written.

EXECUTIVE:                               COMPANY:

                                         R.G. Barry Corporation

/s/ Thomas M. Von Lehman
--------------------------
Thomas M. Von Lehman                     By: /s/ Daniel D. Viren
                                            ------------------------------------
                                         Name: Daniel D. Viren
                                         Title: Senior Vice President - Finance,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
## HCFC Conference Call Canceled Lee, Amanda I. to: 'Thompson, John E (OES)', 'david.ros tker@sba.gov', 'felix.mestey@navy.mil', Karpel, Amy, Weiss, Jeff, Patel, Ma nisha, 'San Martini, Federico M', Perry.Rosen@usdoj.gov 05/16/2011 05:35 PM Cc: JohnB Chamberlin, Luke Ha ll-Jordan, Drusilla Hufford, David Donaldson Show Details

History: This message has been forwarded. Hi all, thanks for all your work in reviewing the pa ckage. Because the interagency reviewers did not have comments on this package, I’m canceling the conference call scheduled for tomorrow. All the best, Amanda

From: Lee, Amanda I. Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 2:38 PM To: 'Thompson, John E (OES)'; david.rost ker@sba.gov; 'felix.mestey@navy.mil'; Karpel, Amy; Weiss, Jeff; Patel, Manisha; 'San Martini, Federico M' Subject: Reminder: EPA's HCFC allocation In terim Final Rule comments due today Importance: High

Your comments are due COB today. Thanks for all your help! Best, Amanda

From: Lee, Amanda I. Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 2:29 PM To: 'Thompson, John E (OES)'; david.rost ker@sba.gov; 'felix.mestey@navy.mil'; Karpel, Amy; Weiss, Jeff; Patel, Manisha Cc: Chamberlin.JohnB@epamail.epa.go v; Hufford.Drusilla@epamail.epa. gov; donaldson.david@epa.gov Subject: EPA's HCFC allocation Interim Final Rule Importance: High

Please find attached EPA’s interim final rule on HCFC allocatio n for 2011. Many apologies for a very brief review time in advance. Please submit your comm ents by COB this Friday (May 13 th ). Also, please let me know your availability for a conference call on Tuesday, May 17, as soon as po ssible. Thanks for all your help! Best, Amanda

SUMMARY: EPA is adjusting the al lowance system controlling U.S. consumption and production of
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) as a result of a re cent court decision vacating a portion of the rule
titled “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjustme nts to the Allowance System for Controlling HCFC
Production, Import, and Export; Final Rule.” EPA interp rets the court’s vacatur as applying to the part
of the rule that establishes the company-by-compa ny baselines and calendar-ye ar allowances for HCFCPage 1 of 2

5/18/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\lhall j or\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7952.h

...22 and HCFC-142b. This action reliev es the regulatory ban on producti on and consumption of these two
chemicals following the court’s vacatur by es tablishing new company-by-company HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b baselines and allocating produc tion and consumption allowances for 2011. Page 2 of 2

5/18/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\lhall j or\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7952.h

...
From: hjeffdurham@comcast.net [mailto:hjeffdurham@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:17 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

I oppose strongly the proposal to impose addtional government control on the 

disposition of 401(k) and IRA accounts. 

 

The US government in general, and the Dept of Labor specifically, is not better 

informed than me on how I should manage my financial assets, either in 

acquisition or disposition. 

 

The failure of the government to balance Medicare and Social Security 

expenditures against revenues is not a record that inspires my trust that you can 

do better than I. 

 

Harry J. Durham
Editorial Note on Part 395
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 395 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 395.32 Non-authenticated driver logs. ( a ) *Tracking non-authenticated operation.* The ELD must associate the non-authenticated operation of a commercial motor vehicle with a single account labeled “Unidentified Driver” as soon as the vehicle is in motion, if no driver has logged into the ELD.
( b ) *Driver.* When a driver logs into an ELD, the driver must review any unassigned driving time when prompted by the ELD and must: ( 1 ) Assume any records that belong to the driver under the driver's account; or
( 2 ) Indicate that the records are not attributable to the driver.
( c ) *Motor carrier.* ( 1 ) A motor carrier must ensure that records of unidentified driving are reviewed and must: ( i ) Annotate the record, explaining why the time is unassigned; or
( ii ) Assign the record to the appropriate driver to correctly reflect the driver's hours of service.
( 2 ) A motor carrier must retain unidentified driving records for each ELD for a minimum of 6 months from the date of receipt.
( 3 ) During a safety inspection, audit or investigation by an authorized safety official, a motor carrier must make available unidentified driving records from the ELD corresponding to the time period for which ELD records are required.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            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 on Form 10-QSB of Heritage Worldwide,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350:

         (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.






Date:  February 14, 2007    /s/ Claude Couty
                            ------------------------------
                                Claude Couty
                                Chief Financial Officer and General Manage
#### § 6.37 Judicial review.

Judicial review of final agency decisions on awards may be sought as provided in 5 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).
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 eAutoclaims, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Eric
Seidel, the President and CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 eAutoclaims, Inc.


/s/ Eric Seidel
---------------------------------
Print Name:  Eric Seidel
Title: President & CEO
June 14, 2006
I

Retirement lndustry Trust Assaciation

Comrcting compades in tlre self-dirertedr€tiralnt idr*y

January 25,2Q11,

MARYL. MOHR

HCECIITfYE DIRECTOR

Office of Regulations and lnterpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Fiduciary Definition Hearing, Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Fiduciary Definition Hearing: Request for Appearance

To Whom lt May Concern:

The Retirement Industry Trust Association (RITA) respectfully requests the

opportunity to testify in the upcoming hearings on March L and 2, 201L. Tom

Anderson, President of RITA, and Mary L. Mohr, Executive Director would like to

present testimony on the proposed definition of the Term "Fiduciary."

l. Introduction: History of RITA

ll. Explanation of Directed Custodian Functions

lll. Why Exclusion Should Apply to Directed Custodians

lV. Exceptions Should Apply to lRAs

V. Public Policy lssues

Vl. Limitations of Directed Custodians' Duties

Vll. Summary

We appreciate the opportunity to be heard and provide input into the rulemaking

process. I can be reached at 941 724 0900 or rylmgk._q.S'lt$A-&gg-ryS.*p!,"rei .

Thank you.

Sincerely, a2aL^

Tom W. Anderson, President

,e/h

Mary L. Mohr, Executive

42SlPasadenacircle I sarasota,F:L 34233 ! Phone 94l.za4.0g0o t Fax 941.866"?32l I www.riraus.org
----

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Colombian flower imports and GSP

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in 2001 and that Colombia's competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme, by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures (Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this is not the Union's market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share of a sector in Colombia's exports.

Nevertheless, to take into account the specific difficulties that might arise, the re-introduction of customs duties will exceptionally be progressive, in two steps (1 November 2003, 1 May 2004), in order not to disturb trade.

Furthermore, the Council adopted, in December 2003, an amendment to the GSP Regulation whereby beneficiary countries accounting for less than one percent of the GSP imports would no longer be in a position to be graduated. Colombia will be eligible under this new provision as from 2005, and accordingly would not be further graduated for any sectors, and the GSP preference should be reestablished for the sector V as from the 1 January 2005.

Concerning import of flowers from Kenya, it is recalled that this country has free access for cut flowers under the Cotonou Agreement and does not use the GSP scheme.

----
Exhibit 32.2

# 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 Princeton National Bancorp, Inc. (PNBC) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I Todd D. Fanning, Vice-President & Chief Financial
Officer of PNBC, certify, 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 my 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 represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of PNBC.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

22

---
§ 80.23 Loan terms. ( a ) The interest rate on a secured loan will be not less than the rate on United States Treasury securities of a similar maturity to the maturity of the secured loan on the date of the execution of the loan agreement, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and 23 U.S.C. chapter 6.
( b ) If, on the date of the execution of the loan agreement, the United States Treasury does not post the rate of securities of a similar maturity to the maturity of the secured loan, the interest rate on any secured loan with both a final maturity date that is more than 35 years after the date of substantial completion of the project, and a loan term that is more than 40 years, will be equal to not less than the rate on thirty-to-forty year Treasury securities plus an annual interest rate adjustment. The annual interest rate adjustment will be, cumulatively: ( i ) 1.4 basis points for each year of the loan term after year 40 to, but not including, year 51;
( ii ) 0.4 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 51 to, but not including, year 71; and
( iii ) 0.2 basis points for each year of the loan term from year 71 to year 100.
( c ) For purposes of this section, “loan term” means the period beginning on the date of the execution of the loan agreement and ending on the final maturity date.
[89 FR 45776, May 24, 2024]