alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- i A\ C
REC-1V¥6$)-09
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION “=: 1?
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

Page 1 of 1

BRANCH As of: February 12, 2010

Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Prstes: reoruay 12, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Received: February 08, 2010

|Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Docket: IRS-2010-0006
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants & Beneficiaries in
Retirement Plans

Comment On: IRS-2010-0006-0001
Request for Information Regarding Lifetime Income Options for Participants and Beneficiaries
Retirement Plans

Document: IRS-2010-0006-0018
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-02028

in

Submitter Information

Name: Jeremy Hannigan
Address:

5492 glenridge dr ne

unit 564

atlanta, GA, 30342
Email: jhanni01@gmail.com
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: DOL
—

General Comment

DOL - I do not support the rules proposed in RIN 1210-AB33. These rules would negatively

impact the financial freedom of responsible citizens. I understand that the intent of these rules is

to care for those who cannot manage to care for themselves, but I do not believe that these

measures are the way to achieve national prosperity. The government is not the proper entity to

control citizens' retirement plans.

Respectfully,
Jeremy Hannigan

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=...

2/12/2010
----

| Name      of Subsidiary                   |   | State      of Incorporation |   | I.D.      Number |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------|
|  Universal      Supply Group, Inc.   |   |  New      York         |   |  11-3391045 |
|  RAL      Supply Group, Inc.         |   |  New      York         |   |  20-0207168 |
|  American/Universal      Supply Inc. |   |  New      York         |   |  16-1661494 |
|  S&A      Supply, Inc.           |   |  New      York         |   |  26-0778121 |

----
#### ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT v. STANLEY BINGHAM, AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued February 11, 1952

Decided February 20, 1952.

Before Judges Jacobs, Eastwood and Bigelow.

*Mr. Jerome S. Lieb*argued the cause for the appellant *(Messrs. Harlcavy and Lieb,*attorneys).

*Mr. David E. Feldman*argued the cause for the respondent William J. Donnelly *(Messrs. Furst, Furst <& Feldman,*attorneys).

*Mr. William Gelfond*argued the cause for the respondent •James Ciar kin.

Per Curiam.

The orders dismissing the complaint as against Donnelly, Clarkin and Zukotynski will be affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Stein, which is reported at 15 *N. J. Super.*328. Costs on appeal will be allowed only to the two respondents first named, since the third respondent has not appeared in the Appellate Division.
From: Mary Knepler [mailto:maryknepler@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:07 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: NO Government Intervention in Retirement Funds

Please stop all action to take over PRIVATE retirement funds. This is not government 

money - you are denying people basic monetary freedom by even considering 

touching it. I cannot believe that my tax dollars are being wasted by this initiative 

(RFI). This is socialism at best - communism certainly comes to mind. American 

financial freedom is core to our fundamental freedom. 

Mary Knepler 

Frisco, TX 

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
From: Derry [mailto:derryb@bellsouth.net] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 6:54 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

The federal government should stay out of the retirement plan business. Fix the Social 

Security ponzi scheme, then ask me about fixing personal retirement accounts.
1210-AB32-2-1263.html[7/24/2015 9:58:09 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvu-gttn

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-1758

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Martin West

General Comment

Our elected and appointed representatives have absolutely no business dictating what the american people can or

 cannot do with our retirement funds. This is another purely unconstitutional move on the part of corrupt

 individuals. And never mind the 1st amendment and the Bill of Rights?
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 10:01 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB39 Department of Labor

I am writing to comment on the Proposed Regulations issued by the Department of Labor, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration on November 18, 2015 (“Proposed Regulations”).

I am very pleased and encouraged to see you are considering changes to make this daunting task more 

fair for the very ill and disabled. There should never be a conflict of interest to determine if an individual 

is indeed disabled and unable to work. All medical parties involved need to be independent of incentives 

or rewards from a 3rd party. Individuals going through this process are already extremely vulnerable, 

humiliated, and desperate. The last thing they need is unequal protection against an establishment 

working in favor to deny as many claims possible that arise. A fair and unbiased assessment should be 

without question.

After going through such a stressful process as a claimant and then being denied without specific reasons 

just adds insult to injury. I absolutely agree with the proposed change to include details and a discussion 

on why a claim is denied. Then faced with an appeal all claimants should have the same access to all 

files and documents as they would their medical records. Any new evidence arising during the appeals 

process needs to have the same protection and access to the claimant.

I thank you for considering and implementing the changes as presented in the proposed regulations. 

Level the playing field for fair LTD plans. Thank you,
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 4.23

                                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The undersigned and each of them (if more than one), being the Mortgagor under a
mortgage (the "Mortgage") bearing the date(s) of execution indicated below
granted to JAMES E. H. DARBY in the principal amount of $2,160,680.98 hereby
acknowledge(s) receipt at or before the time of execution of the Mortgage of:

(1)     a true copy of the set of standard mortgage terms filed under no.
        MT900315 and referred to in item 9 of Form B of the Mortgage;
        and

(2)     a copy of Part 1 of the Mortgage and any schedules thereto including a
        statement of any modifications (by way of additions, amendments or
        deletions) to such filed set of standard mortgage terms.

        DATE OF SIGNATURE                 MORTGAGOR

         Y    M    D                      THE ANSWER GARDEN
                                          PRODUCTS LTD.

       2004  02    10                      "Doug Halward"
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Douglas R. Halward
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedules contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's unaudited financial statements for the nine months ended
September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,689
<PP&E>                                       1,982,847
<DEPRECIATION>                                 226,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,051,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          683,844
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,301,503
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,329,557)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,051,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  918,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (964,590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (964,590)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION

I, Bernard Korn, Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Commercial Corp., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Colonial Commercial Corp.
(the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures, to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003

                                        /S/ BERNARD KORN
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Bernard Korn
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        Chairman of the Board and President





<PAGE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSH SILVEY
, Appellant,

v.

JENNIFER SILVEY
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1861

[ December 14, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Roger B. Colton

, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No.

2014DR001821XXXXMB

.

Richard L. Rosenbaum of Law Offices of Richard Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Daniel Bachert of The Bachert Law Firm, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBE R
, C.J., L EVINE
, J

. , and S INGHAL

, R AAG , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, October 12, 1995 (127), Para 127.28 Clerk to Correct Engrossment]
[Page 1527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.127.28  clerk to correct engrossment

  On motion of Mr. WALKER, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That in the engrossment of the foregoing bill, the Clerk be 
authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross references, 
and to make other technical corrections.
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 365

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 365.123 Applicant withdrawal.

If the applicant wishes to withdraw an application, it shall request dismissal in writing.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. No. 33,710 4 CLYDE BLACKWATER, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 7 William C. Birdsall, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Margaret McLean, Assistant Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 SUTIN, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the 1 charge of commercial burglary. Defendant entered a conditional plea reserving for 2 appeal the issues raised in his motion to dismiss. [RP 60] This Court issued a stay 3 before addressing the merits of the appeal, pending our decision in State v. Archuleta , 4 ___-NMCA-___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,794, Oct. 27, 2014), cert. granted , 5 2015-NMCERT-001, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 35,005, Jan. 6 26, 2015), the first of many cases raising the same issue relative to the charge of 7 commercial burglary. On the basis of Archuleta , we lifted the stay and issued a notice 8 of proposed summary disposition, proposing toreverse. The State has responded with 9 an objection to our notice and a request to hold this appeal in ab eyance or provide the 10 State with a reasonable opportunity to s eek guidance from the New Mexico Supreme 11 Court on all pending appeals controlled by our opinion in Archuleta . [MIO 1-2] We 12 have provided the State with such an opportunity, and the Supreme Court has denied 13 the State a stay or other remedy thatwould suspend the precedential value of 14 Archuleta . Thus, pursuant to Rule 12-405(C) NMRA, we apply Archuleta. SeeRule 15 12-405(C) (“A petition for a writ of certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 12-502 NMRA 16 or a Supreme Court order granting the petition does not affect the precedential value 17 of an opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise ordered by the Supreme 18 Court.”). 193 {2} In its response to our notice, the State simply objects to our proposed 1 disposition without elaboration. [MIO 1, 3] We continue to believe that there are no 2 material factual distinctions to remove this case from the control of our opinion in 3 Archuleta . For the reasons stated in our notice, we reverse Defendant’s conviction for 4 commercial burglary. 5
{3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8

WE CONCUR: 9

_______________________________ 10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 11

_______________________________ 12 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 13
Oct. 31: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq
 By U.S. Central Command News Release
  October 31, 2014 Release #20141037
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE **TAMPA, Fla., Oct. 31, 2014 -** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Thursday and today using fighter and bomber aircraft to conduct four airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted four airstrikes in Iraq Thursday and today using fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. In Syria, four airstrikes were conducted near Kobani damaging four ISIL fighting positions and one ISIL building. In Iraq, an airstrike near Fallujah struck a small ISIL unit and an airstrike near Bayji also struck a small ISIL unit. One airstrike near Al Qaim destroyed one ISIL checkpoint and one ISIL vehicle. One airstrike north of Tikrit struck a large ISIL unit and destroyed three ISIL-occupied buildings. All aircraft departed the strike areas safely. Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project power and conduct operations. Among the coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq are the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. Coalition Nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Bahrain.
§ 8.15 Mandatory review for classification. ( a ) Mandatory declassification review requests will be processed in accordance with 32 CFR 2001.33.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph b of section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, all information classified by the Department of Transportation under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification if: ( 1 ) The request for review describes the information with sufficient specificity to enable its location with a reasonable amount of effort;
( 2 ) The information has not been reviewed for declassification within the prior two years. If the information has been reviewed within the prior two years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the requestor will be informed of this fact, and of the Department's decision not to declassify the information and of his/her right to appeal the Department's decision not to declassify the information to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP);
( 3 ) The document or material containing the information responsive to the request is not contained within an operational file exempted from search and review, publication, and disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 in accordance with law; and
( 4 ) The information is not the subject of pending litigation.
( c ) All information reviewed for declassification because of a mandatory review will be declassified if it does not meet the standards for classification in Executive Order 13526. The information will then be released unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.
( d ) Mandatory declassification review requests for information that has been classified by the Department of Transportation may be addressed to the Director of Security, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC 20590. The Director will forward the request to the appropriate Departmental Original Classification Authority for processing.
( e ) Denied requests may be appealed to the DOT Information Security Review Committee (DISRC) through the Director of Security within 60 days of receipt of the denial. If the DISRC upholds the denial, it will inform the requestor of his or her final appeal rights to the ISCAP.
[81 FR 45981, July 15, 2016]
-----Original Message----- 

From: D&J Albert [mailto:falbert1@cfl.rr.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 10:48 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Regarding RIN 1210-AB33 (Attn: Lifetime Income RFI) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!. AND YES, I KNOW I'M YELLING! 

As Mr. Ortiz said, "I have a broken system that needs more fixing, 

Social Security. Get to work replacing the borrowed funds there, and 

stay away from 401k's. Why on earth would anyone trust you with their 

401k's considering the mismanagement of other "social" programs?" 

As Ms. Tarrant said, "Keep your hands off of my money! I am perfectly 

capable of making my own investment choices. Why would I trust the 

government to handle my retirement money when they can't even handle 

the plan they have set up now, i.e. Social Security?? I have 

investments precisely because I don't expect Social Security to be 

around when I retire!" 

If you need further references to guide your actions, see the following 

documents at http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/: 

The Declaration of Independence 

The Constitution of the United States 

The Bill of Rights
§ 821.49 Issues on appeal. ( a ) On appeal, the Board will consider only the following issues: ( 1 ) Are the findings of fact each supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative and substantial evidence?
( 2 ) Are conclusions made in accordance with law, precedent and policy?
( 3 ) Are the questions on appeal substantial?
( 4 ) Have any prejudicial errors occurred?
( b ) If the Board determines that the law judge erred in any respect, or that his or her initial decision or order should be changed, the Board may make any necessary findings and may issue an order in lieu of the law judge's initial decision or order, or may remand the proceeding for any such purpose as the Board may deem necessary.
Army Promotes Missing-Captured Soldier
 By None  , Office of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs
  Washington (June 16, 2011) — The Army announced today the promotion of a soldier listed as Missing-Captured while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom to the rank of sergeant effective June 12, 2011. Sgt. Bowe R. Bergdahl, 25, is assigned to 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Richardson, Alaska. This is Bergdahl’s second promotion since he was listed as Missing-Captured on June 30, 2009. He was promoted to the rank of specialist on June 12, 2010. For more information on the soldier, media may contact Col. Timothy Marsano at 208-422-5268. U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) On the Web: http://www.defense.gov/releases/ Media Contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public Contact: http://www.defense.gov/landing/questions.aspx or +1 (703) 428-0711 +