alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1281.html[7/22/2015 9:42:30 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-q2bj

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-1281

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

President Obhama,

I am smart enough to plan for my retiirement. Ask us if we are interested in your intentions to help us plan for

 our retirement. We are as interested in being told by you what to do with our retirement as you and Michelle are

 as interested in us telling you what to do. What a pity you are spiritually smashing your elbow in Jesus's heart.

 We are human beings just like you and Michelle and as a matter of fact a. we knew before we voted for you who

 pulled your strings and b. in spite of your not being 100 percent for the middle class and disadvantaged financial

 citizens, we know you will find the Godly Divine intelligence within yourself TO DO THE RIGHT THING and

 lay of planning to be involved in our retirement. This negative energy that goes around will come around and if

 you are truly wise YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T CHEAT GOD AND CAN't CHEAT GOD CHILDREN!

jeff
§ 26.107 What enforcement actions apply to firms participating in the DBE program? ( a ) If you are a firm that does not meet the eligibility criteria of subpart D of this part and that attempts to participate in a DOT-assisted program as a DBE on the basis of false, fraudulent, or deceitful statements or representations or under circumstances indicating a serious lack of business integrity or honesty, the Department may initiate suspension or debarment proceedings against you under 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
( b ) If you are a firm that, in order to meet DBE contract goals or other DBE program requirements, uses or attempts to use, on the basis of false, fraudulent or deceitful statements or representations or under circumstances indicating a serious lack of business integrity or honesty, another firm that does not meet the eligibility criteria of subpart D of this part, the Department may initiate suspension or debarment proceedings against you under 2 CFR parts 180 and 1200.
( c ) In a suspension or debarment proceeding brought under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the concerned operating administration may consider the fact that a purported DBE has been certified by a recipient. Such certification does not preclude the Department from determining that the purported DBE, or another firm that has used or attempted to use it to meet DBE goals, should be suspended or debarred.
( d ) The Department may take enforcement action under 49 CFR Part 31, Program Fraud and Civil Remedies, against any participant in the DBE program whose conduct is subject to such action under 49 CFR part 31.
( e ) The Department may refer to the Department of Justice, for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or other applicable provisions of law, any person who makes a false or fraudulent statement in connection with participation of a DBE in any DOT-assisted program or otherwise violates applicable Federal statutes.
[64 FR 5126, Feb. 2, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 5101, Jan. 28, 2011]
###### Editorial Note on Part 387

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 387.317 Refusal to accept, or revocation by the FMCSA of surety bonds, etc.

The FMCSA may, at any time, refuse to accept or may revoke its acceptance of any surety bond, certificate of insurance, qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities or agreements if, in its judgment such security does not comply with these sections or for any reason fails to provide satisfactory or adequate protection for the public. Revocation of acceptance of any certificate of insurance, surety bond or other security shall not relieve the motor carrier from compliance with § 387.301(c).

[47 FR 55945, Dec. 14, 1982, as amended at 62 FR 49942, Sept. 24, 1997; 80 FR 59073, Oct. 1, 2015]
```

[House Document 109-94]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     

109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 109-94

 
   LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL ENTITLED ``LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 
                                 2006''

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                   THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                              transmitting

  A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT LINE ITEM AUTHORITY TO 
 REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING ENTITLED ``LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO ACT OF 
                                 2006''

   March 18, 2006.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
     Committees on the Budget and Rules, and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    In my State of the Union Address, I asked the Congress to 
give the President a line item veto. Today, I am sending the 
Congress a legislative proposal to give the President line item 
authority to reduce wasteful spending. This legislation will 
help to limit spending and ensure accountability and 
transparency in the expenditure of taxpayer funds.
    Although the Congress achieved significant spending 
restraint this past year, appropriations and other bills that 
are sent to my desk still contain spending that is not fully 
justified, is a low priority, or is earmarked to avoid the 
discipline of competitive or merit-based reviews. When this 
legislation is presented to me, I now have no ability to line 
out unnecessary spending. In 1996, the Congress gave the 
President a line item veto--an important tool to limit wasteful 
spending--but the Supreme Court struck down that version of the 
law in 1998.
    My proposed legislation, the ``Legislative Line Item Veto 
Act of 2006,'' would provide a fast-track procedure to require 
the Congress to vote up-or-down on rescissions proposed by the 
President. There has been broad bipartisan support for similar 
proposals in the past. Under this proposal, the President could 
propose legislation to rescind wasteful spending, and the 
Congress would be obligated to vote quickly on that package of 
rescissions, without amendment. The same procedure would apply 
to new mandatory spending and to special interest tax breaks 
given to small numbers of individuals.
    Forty-three Governors have a line item veto to reduce 
spending. The President needs similar authority to help control 
unjustified and wasteful spending in the Federal budget. I urge 
you to promptly consider and send me this legislation for 
enactment to reduce unnecessary spending and help achieve my 
goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

                                                    George W. Bush.
    The White House, March 6, 2006.

                                  

```
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         August 24, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 14, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 783 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2023-225, CP2023-228.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-18202 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
§ 512.8 What supporting information should I submit with my request? When requesting confidentiality, the submitter shall: ( a ) Describe the information for which confidentiality is being requested;
( b ) Identify the confidentiality standard(s) under which the confidentiality request should be evaluated, in accordance with § 512.15;
( c ) Justify the basis for the claim of confidentiality under the confidentiality standard(s) identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section by describing: ( 1 ) Why the information qualifies as a trade secret, if the basis for confidentiality is that the information is a trade secret;
( 2 ) What the harmful effects of disclosure would be and why the effects should be viewed as substantial, if the claim for confidentiality is based upon substantial competitive harm;
( 3 ) What significant NHTSA interests will be impaired by disclosure of the information and why disclosure is likely to impair such interests, if the claim for confidentiality is based upon impairment to government interests;
( 4 ) What measures have been taken by the submitter to ensure that the information is not customarily disclosed or otherwise made available to the public, if the basis for confidentiality is that the information is voluntarily submitted; and
( 5 ) The information is otherwise entitled to protection, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
( d ) Indicate if any items of information fall within any of the class determinations included in appendix B to this Part;
( e ) Indicate the time period during which confidential treatment is sought; and
( f ) State the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom NHTSA's response and any inquiries should be directed.
#### § 599.101 Scope.

The requirements of this part apply to new vehicle purchase or lease transactions, in combination with trade-in vehicle transactions that occur on or after July 1, 2009 up to and including November 1, 2009, and to the disposal of trade-in vehicles under the CARS Act.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6378

DONALD E. GRIFFIN, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ALICE MASICO; AARON JOYNER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Donald C. Coggins, Jr. , District Judge. ( 0:17

- cv
- 02852

- DCC )

Submitted : July 16, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donald Eugene Griffin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this c ircuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald E. Griffin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants
in Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Griffin v. Masico , No. 0 :17

- cv
- 0 2852

- DCC ( D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequa tely presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 38.151 General. ( a ) New, used and remanufactured over-the-road buses, to be considered accessible by regulations in part 37 of this title, shall comply with this subpart.
( b ) Over-the-road buses covered by § 37.7 (c) of this title shall comply with § 38.23 and this subpart.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30, 2015

a0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2015

150309(125)

JOSEPH WHITE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 150309

COA: 314990

Wayne CC: 11

- 011126

- CZ

DETROIT EAST COMMUNITY MENTAL

HEALTH, MARILYN SNOWDEN, SHIRLEY

CALHOUN, DORIS STERRETT, and GATEWAY

COMMUNITY HEALTH PROVIDER,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 31,

2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-50381 Summary Calendar

__________________

KWP Financial I, Inc., A California Corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee.

versus

John C. Harlan,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-42)

__________________________________________

October 9, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Harlan appeals summary judgment on a promissory note and

guaranty, contending that his set-off claim was not p roperly

addressed, and that appellee’s evidence was insufficient as a

matter of law.

Claims of set-off are affirmative defenses which must be

raised in defendant’s first responsive pleading, or they are lost.Davis v. Ode co , 18 F.3d 1237, 1245 (5th Cir.) c ert. denied

, 115

S.Ct. 78 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Harlan did not raise setoff in his answer; and, it appears, he never moved to amend to

include set-off. The district court understandably did not

consider defendant’s set-off claim; and, as defendant never sought

leave to amend in the dis trict court, we refuse to consider that

new issue on appeal. Harlan’s waiver of the set-off claim obviates

analysis of whether he satisfied Section 51.003 of the Texas

Propert y Code, regarding determination of fair market value of

foreclosed property.

KWP Financial submitted proper summary judgment evidence which

satisfied the requirements of a prima facie case for collection on

a pro missory note. Harlan’s evidentiary objections fail because

the promissory note itself is verbal conduct wh ich falls outside

the prescription against hearsay. The other evidence submitted by

KWP financial is cognizable, and sufficient, under Texas law, for

proof of a claim on a promissory note. S ee, e.g., Zarges v. Bevan,

652 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. 1983).

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Application of The New York Electric Lines Company, Appellant, for a Writ of Writ of Mandamus against The Empire City Subway Company, Limited, Respondent.

(Submitted May 29, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Motion for re-argument or to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 201 N. Y. 321.)
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 26, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-10812 

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:04-cr-20516-PAS-21

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS RUBIO,

Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(August 26, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and LAWSON, District *

Judge.

 Honorable Hugh Lawson, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation. 
PER CURIAM:

In this sentencing appeal, we see no reversible error. On this record, the

District Court had sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding that

defendant knew that the laundered funds were proceeds of drug trafficking

activity.

AFFIRMED.

2
@3033/

BRUCE L. BRALEY WATERLOO DISTRICT OFFICE
1st District, lowa 501 Sycamore St., Suite 610
ee Wetertoo,1AS0703

. prone: (919) 257-3238
nasingron pe Orrick Congress of the United States Pana
"gga Gouse of Representatives DAVENPORT DISTRICT OFFICE
(202) 205
hp housn govbealey Washington, BC 20515
ENERGY AND
COMMERCE COMMITTEE DUBUQUE DISTRICT OFFICE

December 8, 2010 4350 W. 61H Sr, Sue 222

Dubuque, !A 52001

Phone: (563) 557-7789
POPULIST CAUCUS Fax: (563) 557-1324

CHasranan

The Honorable Hilda Solis
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Solis:

Thank you for your leadership at the Department of Labor. | write today
regarding the Department of Labor's proposed rule on fiduciaries. It is my
understanding that the proposed rule will expand the definition of the term fiduciary to
include employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) stock appraisers. These stock
appraisers put a value on ESOPs.

| urge you to consider hearing from all affected parties regarding this before you
issue your final rule. | have specifically heard from one of my constituents regarding
this proposed rule and there is some concern that this rule will have a negative effect on
ESOPs. Particularly there is some concer that adding ESOP stock appraisers as
fiduciaries will lead to increased costs for ESOPs. These increased costs could lead to
diminishing profits for ESOPs thus leading to less retirement savings for ESOP
employees. | urge the Department to consider all of these scenarios before making a
final rule.

Thank you again for your leadership at the Department of Labor and please feel
free to contact me if | can provide further assistance.

Sincerely,

SukZe,

Bruce L. Braley
Member of Congress

dl
#### The State *ex rel.*Rosenblatt, *Collector,*v. The Illinois & St. Louis Bridge Company, *Appellant.*

Sections 5 and 11 of the act of April 17th, 1877, providing for the collection of delinquent taxes, are constitutional.

*Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.*

Aeeirmed.

*Broadhead, Slayback Haeussler*for appellant.

*King $ Chapin*for respondent.

Hough, J.

We are of opinion that sections 5 and 11 of the act of April 17th, 1877, providing for the collection ■of delinquent taxes, are constitutional; and as the proceed*443ing before us has been conducted in substantial compliance with the provisions of that act, the judgment of the court of appeals will be affirmed.

All concur.
IV

House Calendar No. 127

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 353

[Report No. 107–364]

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 275)

expressing the sense of the Congress that hunting seasons for migratory

mourning doves should be modified so that individuals have a fair and

equitable opportunity to hunt such birds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 2002

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered

to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H.

Con. Res. 275) expressing the sense of the Congress

that hunting seasons for migratory mourning doves

should be modified so that individuals have a fair and

equitable opportunity to hunt such birds.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider-
2

HRES 353 RH

1 ation of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 275) ex2 pressing the sense of the Congress that hunting seasons

3 for migratory mourning doves should be modified so that

4 individuals have a fair and equitable opportunity to hunt

5 such birds. The first reading of the concurrent resolution

6 shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consid7 eration of the concurrent resolution are waived. General

8 debate shall be confined to the concurrent resolution and

9 shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled

10 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

11 Committee on Resources. After general debate the concur12 rent resolution shall be considered for amendment under

13 the five-minute rule. The concurrent resolution shall be

14 considered as read. During consideration of the concurrent

15 resolution for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee

16 of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the

17 basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has

18 caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional

19 Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

20 XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as

21 read. At the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent

22 resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and

23 report the concurrent resolution to the House with such

24 amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

25 question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent
3

HRES 353 RH

1 resolution and amendments thereto to final adoption with2 out intervening motion except one motion to recommit

3 with or without instructions.
House Calendar No. 127

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 353

[Report No. 107–364]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 275) expressing the sense of

the Congress that hunting seasons for migratorymourning doves should be modified so that individuals have a fair and equitable opportunity tohunt such birds.

MARCH 5, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### § 650.3 Applicability.

This part applies to any recipient subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 that funds a public transportation capital project with Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. chapter 53, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) (23 U.S.C. 181-189, 601-609), the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program (45 U.S.C. 821-823), or with any other Federal financial assistance.