alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group arrives in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea 

/ Published Oct. 10, 2023

                CENTCOM Logo                            CENTCOM Logo                            CENTCOM Logo            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy PhotoVIRIN: 231028-M-LM779-002

Oct. 10, 2023

Release Number 20231010-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. -** The USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group arrives in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea in order to deter any actor seeking to escalate the situation or widen this war. The forces in the area include the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), with its 8 squadrons of attack and support aircraft, and the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), as well as the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyers USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS Carney (DDG 64), and USS Roosevelt (DDG 80).

Efforts to increase U.S. posture continue, including the rapid movement into theater of U.S. Air Force F-15s, F-16s and A-10s to augment existing fighter squadrons in the region.

"The arrival of these highly capable forces to the region is a strong signal of deterrence should any actor hostile to Israel consider trying to take advantage of this situation," said General Michael "Erik" Kurilla, commander, U.S. Central Command.

-30-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         114,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  699,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,745,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,813,000
<PP&E>                                       4,810,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,905,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,411,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,350,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,009,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,411,000
<SALES>                                     20,369,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,369,000
<CGS>                                       10,544,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,333,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,000,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,230,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,230,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 258,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,441,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,531,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 transacts a significant volume of commercial real

estate transactions in New York City on behalf of a Fortune 500 Commercial Real Estate firm.  In

this capacity, I am concerned about the implications of the Proposed Rule.  I represent a number

of benefit plans on the disposition and acquisition of commercial real estate, and I believe the

Proposed Rule in its current form will severely limit the ability of a benefit plan to act in its best

financial interest in leasing and sales transactions.  For example, once a benefit plan hires a

brokerage team, the benefit plan is prohibited from bidding or purchasing any property

represented in the sale or managed by that brokerage firm.  Additionally, if a benefit plan

retains a brokerage firm to sell a building in which it has an interest, the benefit plan would not

be able to consider any bidder represented by the brokerage firm.  This is a significant limitation.  

I am employed by a full service commercial firm who has a dominant market share in the New

York City marketplace.  As such, it is inevitable that one line of business within my firm ends up

on both sides of a deal.  In these instances, our firm and our duty under our brokerage licenses

impose a barrier to protect our respective clients from any conflict of interest.  To preclude a

benefit plan from obtaining the most economically sensible deal in these circumstances seems

contrary to the protection your Proposed Rule is intended to impart.  I do not believe this is the

Department’s intent.   

Thank you for taking the time to consider my comment.

Respectfully,

Paul Leibowitz
Hillsborough,

Dec., 1899.

#### State *v.*Collins.

The statute prohibiting the sale of oleomargarine unless the substance is of some color other than that of yellow butter is not in conflict with the constitution of this state.

When it is uncertain whether a statute of this state is in violation of the constitution of the United States, a criminal prosecution thereunder will ordinarily be sustained in order that the question may be determined by the federal courts.

Indictment, charging the defendant with selling a package of oleomargarine of the same color as yellow butter, in violation of section 1, chapter 115, Laws 1895. Trial by jury and verdict of guilty.

The defendant is the agent in this state of Swift & Co., an Illinois corporation engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine in that state. They ship some of their product to him at Manchester in this county, where he sells it in the original packages as ther agent. They have complied with all the provisions of law, state and national, relative to its sale, except that of this state respecting color; and it is impossible for them to comply with that and sell their product.

Oleomargarine is manufactured and sold as a substitute for butter, contains no unwholesome ingredient, is known and dealt in as an article of food, and is of the color of yellow butter, the coloring matter used being the same as that employed to color butter. There was no deception in this sale, which was made in the ordinary course of business.

Upon the foregoing facts the court overruled the defendant’s motion to direct a 'verdict in his favor, and he excepted.

*James P.*Tuttle, solicitor, for the state.

*Harry E.*Loveren, for the defendant.

Young, 3".

The statute upon which this indictment is founded is not in conflict with the constitution of tins state *(State*v. *Marshall,*64 N. H. 549); and for the reasons given in *State*v. *Collins,*67 N. H. 540, the federal question is not considered. *Plumley*v. *Massachusetts,*155 U. S. 461; *Collins*v. *New Hampshire,*171 U. S. 30.

*Pxception overruled.*

Chase, 3"., did not sit: the others concurred.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DWAYNE DASHIELL

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Appellee. §

§ No. 134 , 2023

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 2106011171 ( S )

§

§

§

Submitted: October 31 , 2023

Decided: November 2 , 2023

ORDER

On September 7 , 2023 , the Chief Deputy Clerk sent a notice of brief

delinquency to the appellant because he had not filed an opening brief by the August

3 1, 2023 deadline set by the Court. On September 20 , 2023

, the Chief Deputy Clerk

issued a notice, sent by certified mail

, to the appellant directing him to show cause

why this appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief. The

notice was returned as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. On October 17,

2023, the notice was resent via First Class Mail t o the appellant’s last known address.

A timely response to the notice was due on or before October 30, 2023. To date, the

appellant has neither responded to the notice to show cause n or filed an opening

brief. Dismissal of this appeal is therefore deeme d to be unopposed.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that th is appeal be DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
From: mdykes3805@aol.com [mailto:mdykes3805@aol.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 7:51 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Lifetime Income RFI

I strongly believe that participation in any "enhancements" of IRAs,457s etc.with a view toward 

providing lifetime income should be entirely voluntary. I have been managing my retirement 

accounts for years and have done adequately well. If you force people to sign up for annuities,it 

only assures income for financial services providers,without enhancing returns for the owner of 

the funds. 

Jack Dykes 

Madison,VA
§ 390.113 Reasons for removal from the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. FMCSA may remove a medical examiner from the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners when a medical examiner fails to meet or maintain the qualifications established by §§ 390.103 through 390.115, the requirements of other regulations applicable to the medical examiner, or otherwise does not meet the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31149. The reasons for removal may include, but are not limited to: ( a ) The medical examiner fails to comply with the requirements for continued listing on the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners, as described in § 390.111.
( b ) FMCSA finds that there are errors, omissions, or other indications of improper certification by the medical examiner of an operator in either the completed Medical Examination Reports or the medical examiner's certificates.
( c ) The FMCSA determines the medical examiner issued a medical examiner's certificate to an operator of a commercial motor vehicle who failed to meet the applicable standards at the time of the examination.
( d ) The medical examiner fails to comply with the examination requirements in § 391.43 of this chapter.
( e ) The medical examiner falsely claims to have completed training in physical and medical examination standards as required by §§ 390.103 through 390.115.
[77 FR 24127, Apr. 20, 2012, as amended at 83 FR 26860, June 11, 2018]
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 81 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 4- cr-2 05 16 -PAS-2 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us JUAN CARLOS RUB IO, Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st26 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andLAW SON, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e.
Honora

ble Hugh L awson, United States District Judge for the Middle D istrict of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.PER CURI AM:

In th is sen te nc in g app eal , we see no rev ers ib le erro r. On t hi s re co rd , th e Dis tri ctCo ur t h adsu ffi ci en t ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o s up po rt afin di ng th at de fen da ntkn ew th atth e la un de redfun ds were p ro ceed s o f drug tra ffi ck in g act iv ity . AFFIR MED.

2
1st Amend Parlontieri Employment Agree






FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of September 15, 2003 between Speedemissions, Inc. ("Employer") and Richard A. Parlontieri ("Employee") (the "Employment Agreement") governing the terms and conditions of Employee's employment with Employer; and




WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement regarding the exercise price of the stock options that were granted to employee pursuant to the Employment Agreement; 




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:




1.    Section 3(h) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 3 is inserted in lieu thereof:




(h)          The Employee is hereby granted options (in the aggregate, the “Options”) to subscribe for and purchase from the Employer four hundred thousand (400,000) shares of the Company’s Common Stock (in the aggregate, the “Option Stock”) at a price per share equal to the Fair Market Value of the of the Option Stock as of the date hereof. “Fair Market Value” shall mean twenty-five cents ($0.25) per share. The Options may be exercised by the Employee or members of his immediate family. Upon the execution of this Agreement one-fourth, or 100,000, of the Options are fully vested. The remaining 300,000 Options will vest in three equal parts of 100,000 Options on each of October 1, 2004; October 1, 2005; and October 1, 2006. Upon a Change of Control (as hereinafter defined), or termination Without or With Cause (as hereinafter defined), all Options remaining unvested shall be automatically vested and may be immediately exercised. All other terms and conditions relating to the Options shall be set forth in a separate Option Agreement between the Employee and Employer; provided, however, that the terms and conditions of the Option Agreement shall not conflict with this subsection (h).




2.           The Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is hereby reaffirmed and restated herein by the undersigned, and said Employment Agreement is hereby incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set forth in its entirety in this First Amendment. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer has caused this Amendment to be executed and Employee has hereunto set his hand this 19th day of December, 2003.




EMPLOYER:

SPEEDEMISSIONS, INC.




By:   ___/s/ Bahram Yusefzadeh ________________



Title: _ Director_____________________________   




EMPLOYEE:




____/s/ Richard A. Parlontieri__________________(SEAL)

Richard A. Parlontieri
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.4    
    


Translation for information purpose only  


CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ  


Financing
Management

Financing Projects Department 


To EURO DISNEY SCA

BP 100

77777 MARNE LA VALLEE 


For
the attention of Mr SPEED 


October 31,
2003 


Re:
Waiver request 


Dear
Sirs, 


        As
Agent of the Phase IB Banks and Partners, we are pleased, to inform you that the Majority of the Banks part of the amended FRF 2,9 billion Credit Agreement dated
March 25, 1991 and the Majority of the Lenders part of the amended FRF 800 billion Advances Agreement dated March 25, 1991 have decided to approve your waiver request dated
October 17, 2003. 


Yours
faithfully, 


Xavier
Monteau                                        
                                          
                                          
                    David Rigaud
 


	Copy:
	BNP
Paribas (Martine Aubert and Olivier Jean)

Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (Catherine Le Corre and Claudie Tanguy)

Slaughter and May (Peter Deckers and Sophie Nicolas) 









QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.4
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

Morgan Stanley

February 9, 2011

Office of Regulations and Interpretations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Attn: Fiduciary Definition Hearing

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

To Whom It May Concern:

We respectfully request an opportunity for Jim McCarthy, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley Smith
Barney, to testify on Morgan Stanley's behalf at the Department’s March 1-2, 2011 hearing.

Mr. McCarthy’s testimony will track the points raised in Morgan Stanley’s comment letter dated February
2, 2011 as follows:

The Department should, at a minimum, defer the Proposed Regulation for the following reasons:

e The Department’s s Should Be Coordinated with Congressional Intent and the Directives Given to
‘oncurrent regulatory efforts addressing institutional market conduct (with the CFTC)
and fiduciary status (with the SEC) have been undertaken by other regulatory organizations, and the
Proposed Regulation has not been drafted to coordinate and interact effectively with such regulatory
efforts. We believe that the Proposed Regulation, on the institutional side, directly conflicts with the
CFTC’s “business conduct” standard, rendering the ability of plans as “major swap participants” to
continue to do such activity in question. We also believe that the Department has overlooked the
importance of preserving continued access by plans and IRAs to existing products, fee structures and
services specifically cited by the SEC in its fiduciary report as necessary and desirable for investors.

e Cost Analysis: The Department's efforts, we believe, do not fully consider the impact that this Proposed
Regulation would have on market participants (including plans), the costs of the Proposed Regulation have
not been clearly vetted, and we believe they far exceed any of those identified by the Department.

e The Proposed Regulations’ Scope Is Not Supported By the Department’s Findings: The reach of the
Proposed Regulation goes far beyond any problems identified by the Department in its justification for this
regulatory action. One example, but not the only, is that the primary justification for the Proposed
Regulation relates to enforcement issues, but the Department does not have the authority to enforce rules on
a significant portion of the retirement accounts (namely IRAs) now affected.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Sincerely!

Ze tz 7\
William E. Ryan II

Executive Director, f
Legal and Compliance (ERISA Law)
### TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

**FROM:** Ryan Novak , ERG **DATE:** September 30 , 2015 **SUBJECT: Index for Supporting Documentation for the**  **Mississippi River ,**  **MO/IL Case** 

**Study Model (DCN**  **SE0559 4**  **)** This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the Mississippi River , MO/IL Case Study Model, developed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA

- 821
- R
- 15
- 006 (DCN SE04527) . The supporting documentation for this case stud y includes the files listed in Table 1. **Table 1. Supporting Documentation for the Mississippi River**  **, MO/IL**  **Case Study Model Attachm** **ent ID**  **Document Name Brief Description** 

A1 Attachment 1: Pollutant

Loadings and Design Workbook

- SE0559 4 A1 Documentation of the modeling scope, design, steam electric pow er plant loadings, STORET monitoring data, and DMR/TRI point source loadings evaluated for the Mississippi River , MO/IL case study mo del. Refer to the ‘ReadMe’ tab of the w orkbook for additional information about the con tents of each tab.

A2 Attachment 2: WASP

Model Input and Output Files

- SE0559 4 A2 These files represent the WA SP model input and output file s for the Mississippi River , MO/IL case study model. The WASP input file (.wif) for each pollutant and scenario represents the settings and inputs used to execute case study modeling. The output data represent the daily water column and sediment concentrations in each segment of the WASP model, for each pollutant, for baseline and each regulatory option.

A3 Attachment 3 : Water

Quality Benchmark Exceedance Analysis

- SE0559 4 A 3 T he water quality analysis for the Mississippi River , MO/IL case study model. These results were generated by running a script on the raw WASP model output (see Attachment 2) . The output from this script indicates the percent of daily average concentrations that each segment exceeded the water quality benchmarks and CSCL sediment benchmarks evaluated in the EA.
A4 Attachment 4 : Wildlif e and Human Health Im pacts Analysis

- SE0559 4 A4 T he wildlife and human health analysis for the Mississippi River , MO/IL case study model. This workbook includes the annual average water column concentration output, generated by the WASP model , that were ev aluated against the threshold concentrations determined to trigger wildlife or human health benchmark exceedances.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/21/15 

Received: July 21, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k3v-pcn3

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-2614

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Patricia Schumacher

Address: 

Changes Within S.C.

200 Air Park Road

Marshfield, WI, 54449

Email: pschumacherdc@gmail.com

Phone: 715-384-3553

General Comment

I am a small business owner and am deeply troubled about the DOLs proposed regulation on the 

definition of "fiduciary" under the ERISA. Its not easy encouraging my younger employees to 

save for their retirement, which is far off in the future. I fear that if this new rule is put in place, 

they will likely get less advice on our various plan options. It will definitely be harder for 

advisors to help businesses start up or improve their employee benefit plans by limiting the 

ability of advisors to provide information about distributions, investments and guaranteed 

lifetime income options.

As you know, small employers like me have a tremendous amount of responsibility when it 

comes to saving for retirement and encouraging employees to do the same. To help me manage 

this challenge, I work with a trusted financial professional who provides educational resources, 

investment expertise, and personalized retirement planning advice. My financial advisor has 
helped me and my employees develop savings plans to meet our goals and achieve financial 

security in retirement. As a result, we are more confident in our financial future.

The rule would have the unintended effect of banning the sale of certain retirement products 

because of the requirements associated with the compensation provisions in the rule. I dont 

understand how it would be possible to comply with these requirements unless the industry 

moves to level fees, which would skew the market by favoring some products based solely on 

fees, regardless of the overall benefit to the consumer.

Another concern I have is that the proposal would drive the market toward fee-based 

arrangements that are only available to wealthier investors due to account minimums. As a result, 

most middle-market investors would be forced into no- and low-service, do-it-yourself 

retirement accounts, which would deprive them of meaningful, personalized retirement advice 

and limit their retirement planning options.

I thank you for considering my point of view and I encourage the Department of Labor to 

improve the rule so that it doesnt lead to fewer people saving for their retirement.