alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: January 19, 2016

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k0-8nha-2bx5

Comments Due: January 19, 2016

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0001

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0064

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-29295

Submitter Information

Name: Jeff Warncke

Address: 

3490 Piedmont Rd, NE

Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA, 30305

Email: jswarncke@esww-law.com

Phone: 4048419400

General Comment

I would like to weigh in favoring the proposed rule changes. For more than 15 years I have 

represented claimants in ERISA-governed disability claims, not only through the claims and 

appeal processes, but also in litigation. The Department has identified the most important and 

recurring issues that seem to undermine the due process the regulations are designed to 

guarantee. 

In particular, I favor the move to formally do away with the "substantial compliance" doctrine by 

which many courts have excused departures from the regulatory requirements. Excusing the 

insurer's departures invites neglect at minimum, and abuse at the worst. Unrepresented lay 

people have a hard enough time perfecting their claims in ERISA's administrative labyrinth even 

when the plan administrator does comply completely with all its deadlines, notices and other 

obligations. Excusing departures by the administrator seems to invite a lower level of care by 

administrators and can meaningfully undermine the claimant's rights. 

If I had my own wish list of regulatory issues, at the top of my list would be a prohibition against 
"remands" by federal judges even after a finding that an adverse claim decision was an abuse of 

discretion. Increasingly we see situations where a claim is denied, the claimant retains counsel, 

files suit and litigates for years (without any income in the meantime), actually prevails in 

proving that the denial of the claim was an abuse of discretion, and his reward is to have the 

claim "remanded" to the same wrongdoer for further administrative proceedings. Sometimes this 

leads to another denial with the insurer using the opportunity to try to cover the decision with 

better evidence, and a second trip back into court to start all over. This creates a never ending 

process where the claimant is starved into submission, and where the wrongdoer is never held 

accountable. I would love to see a rule requiring the federal judiciary to rule on the merits of the 

claim and either award or deny benefits, and doing away with remands altogether. If an insurer 

has denied a claim arbitrarily, it should be ordered to pay, and the worker should receive his or 

her benefits. Federal judges are punting on their responsibility to make a decision on the merits 

when the administrator behaves badly.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Ron Young [mailto:Ronald_Young@us.ibm.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 4:49 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for 

Participants and Beneficiaries in Retirement Plans 

I am very much against suggestions or proposals allowing companies to 

dump their pension obligations by transferring them to other companies. 

This is a recipe for disaster allowing for underfunding and/or failure 

by the second company to fund the pension obligations by either 

accidental or intentional poor management by the second company or by 

unexpected or expected market circumstances beyond the control of the 

second company. 

The initial company should retain obligation for the solvency of the 

pension obligations in all circumstances. 

Thanks 

Ron Young 

email: rdyoung@us.ibm.com
H. Res. 497

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 24, 2002.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4628) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 2003 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government, the Community Management

Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and

Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a sub-
2

•HRES 497 EH

stitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as

read. All points of order against the committee amendment

in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to

the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall

be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of

rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered

only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments

as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the

Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 555.14 Processing of petitions.

The Administrator shall notify the petitioner whether the petition is complete within 30 days of receipt. The Administrator shall attempt to approve or deny any complete petition submitted under this subpart within 120 days after the agency acknowledges that the application is complete. Upon good cause shown, the Administrator may review a petition on an expedited basis.
#### Eliphalet Nott, Appellant, v. Henry Clews, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Comcast Corporation and its subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form
S-3 and S-8 of our report on Birmingham Cable Corporation Limited and
subsidiaries dated February 28, 1997 (March 12, 1997 as to Note 3), incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Comcast Corporation and its
subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1996.


Registration Statements on Form S-8:

Title of Securities Registered                  Registration Statement Number

The Comcast Corporation Retirement Investment Plan          33-41440

The Comcast Corporation Retirement Investment Plan          33-63223

Storer Communications Retirement Savings Plan               33-54365

Stock Option Plans                                          33-25105

Stock Option Plans                                          33-56903

The 1996 Comcast Corporation Stock Option Plan              333-08577

The 1996 Comcast Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan     333-18715


Registration Statements on Form S-3:

Title of Securities Registered

Senior Debentures; Senior Subordinated Debentures;
Subordinated Debentures; Preferred Stock, without par
value; Depository Shares representing Preferred Stock;
Class A Common Stock, $1.00 par value; Class A Special
Common Stock, $1.00 par value and Warrants                  33-40386

Class A Special Common Stock, $1.00 par value               33-46988

Senior Debentures, Senior Subordinated Debentures
and Subordinated Debentures                                 33-57410

Senior Debentures; Senior Subordinated Debentures;
Subordinated Debentures; Preferred Stock, without par
value; Depository Shares representing Preferred Stock;
Class A Common Stock, $1.00 par value; Class A Special
Common Stock, $1.00 par value and Warrants                  33-50785

Class A Special Common Stock, par value $1.00 per share     333-06161


/s/ Deloitte & Touche

Birmingham, England
March 26, 1997
# March 31 USCENTCOM Conducts Humanitarian Airdrops into Gaza

/ Published March 31, 2024

March 31, 2024Release Number 20240331 - 02FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. –** U.S. Central Command conducted an air drop of humanitarian assistance into Northern Gaza on March 31, 2024, at 12:30 p.m. (Gaza time) to provide essential relief to civilians affected by the ongoing conflict.

The joint operation included four C-130 U.S. Air Force aircraft and U.S. Army Soldiers specialized in aerial delivery of U.S humanitarian assistance supplies.

U.S. C-130s dropped over 50,000 U.S. meals ready to eat (MREs) into Northern Gaza, an area of great need, allowing for civilian access to the critical aid.

The DoD humanitarian airdrops contribute to ongoing U.S. and partner-nation government efforts to alleviate human suffering. These airdrops are part of a sustained effort, and we continue to plan follow-on aerial deliveries.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 43 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 43

   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 
             Commerce in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2001

 Mr. Tauzin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Energy and 
             Commerce in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereafter 
in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $18,813,475 for the One Hundred 
Seventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

     Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $8,938,911.40 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2001, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2002; and
             (2) not more than $9,874,563.60 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2002, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2003.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

     Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House 
Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

     Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130797 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130797 COA: 264947 Saginaw CC: 02-022461-FH 03-023067-FH MICHAEL DERAIL FLOYD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

*Name and Committee Code:*                     Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure (Fall 2023) (#25150) (Hybrid Meeting).                

*Date and Time:*                     September 21, 2023 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Eastern), September 22, 2023 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Eastern).                

*Place:*                     NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Hybrid).                

                    The final meeting agenda and instructions to register and attend the meeting will be posted on the ACCI website:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​cise/​oac/​advisory.jsp.*

                    Please contact Rediet Woldeselassie at                     *rwoldese@nsf.gov*                     to obtain a visitor badge. All visitors to the NSF will be required to show photo ID to obtain a badge.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Open.                

*Contact Persons:*                     Walton, Amy, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-4538.                

*Minutes:*                     May be obtained from Christine Christy, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (783) 878-0375 and will be posted within 90-days after the meeting end date to the ACCI website:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​cise/​oac/​advisory.jsp.*

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and activities.                

*Agenda:*                     Updates on OAC wide NSF activities.                

Dated: August 18, 2023.

Crystal Robinson,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-18186 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,560
<SECURITIES>                                    17,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,103
<INVENTORY>                                        926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,916
<PP&E>                                          17,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,437
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,437
<SALES>                                         52,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,561
<CGS>                                           19,559
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,060
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50384 Conference Calendar

CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SYLVIA VILLALBA ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-96-CV-182

- - - - - - - - - - April 8, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carol Johnene Morris, Texas prisoner #488243, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) of her civil rights complaint. Morris’s claim that her state parole was improperly revoked is legally frivolous because she has not shown that the revocation has been declared invalid. See Jackson v. Vannoy , 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 148 (1995). Moreover, members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles who personally participate in the quasi-judicial activity of parole revocation proceedings areNo. 97-50384 -2- entitled to absolute immunity. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Paroles , 47 F.3d 158, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Morris’s complaint as frivolous. See Moore v. Mabus , 976 F.2d 268, 270 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Morris’s motions for summary judgment and for production of documents and audiotapes are DENIED. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
----

(2004/C 88 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0614/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject:   EU/Angola 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to Angola, can the Commission provide information on the following: What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with Angola? What are the funds allocated? What is the expected duration of the individual programmes? What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their success or otherwise? What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-0610/03, E-0611/03, E-0612/03, E-0613/03 and E-0614/03

given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Honourable Member's questions are wide-ranging and detailed.

European Development Fund

The main source of financial co-operation with these countries is the European Development Fund (EDF). These funds were provided in the framework of the Lomé Conventions and since 1 April 2003 the Cotonou Agreement. The attached table which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat summarises commitments and payments in respect of each country for the period 1999-2002, in order to show the scale of each programme and its development over the period.

The Head of Delegation produces reports on the implementation of EDF-financed programmes in the country in question.

These cover inter alia:

The reports on the situation up to the end of 2002 are currently being finalised, and will be sent to the Honourable Member as soon as they are available.

Other funding

Funding may also be provided to these countries from the general Community budget. Information concerning projects to support democracy and human rights is being sent direct to the Parliament and to Parliament's Secretariat. Information on other budget-financed projects will be sent as soon as possible.

Effectiveness

The Commission attaches the highest importance to maximising the effectiveness of the actions financed. The strategy for interventions in each country is decided after careful discussion with the Government, other donors and civil society. Summaries of the five strategies are being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The full text of each strategy is available on the website of Directorate General (D) Development, under (http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/csp_rsp/csp_en.cfm).

Various evaluations have been carried out in relation to the five countries; summaries of those completed since 1999 are being sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. The full text of each report is available on the EuropeAid website under (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/evaluation/program/acprep.htm).

----
# USS Portland Tests High Energy Laser Weapon System in Gulf of Aden

/ Published Dec. 15, 2021
MANAMA, Bahrain , 
Amphibious transport dock ship USS Portland (LPD 27) conducted a high-energy laser weapon system demonstration, Dec. 14, while sailing in the Gulf of Aden.During the demonstration, the Solid State Laser - Technology Maturation Laser Weapons System Demonstrator (LWSD) Mark 2 MOD 0 aboard Portland successfully engaged a static surface training target. Portland previously tested the LWSD in May 2020 when it successfully disabled a small unmanned aerial system while operating in the Pacific Ocean.The Office of Naval Research selected Portland to host the laser weapon technology in 2018. The LWSD is considered a next-generation follow-on to the Laser Weapon System (LaWS) that afloat forward staging base USS Ponce (AFSB(I)-15) tested for three years while operating in the Middle East.Portland is part of the Essex Amphibious Ready Group that includes amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2), dock landing ship USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52) and embarked Marines from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. The units departed San Diego in August and began operating in the U.S. 5th Fleet region in September.The region's geography, climate, and strategic importance offer a unique environment for technology innovation. U.S. 5th Fleet's area of operations includes the world's largest standing maritime partnership, Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean.