alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. South Building – Suite 900 – Washington, D.C. 20004-2601 Phone: 202-

220-3172 Fax: 202-639-8238 Toll-Free: 1-866-360-7197 

Email: nrlnmessage@msn.com Website: http://www.nrln.org 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

February 9, 2011 

Employee Benefits Security Administration 

RE: Hearing on Fiduciary Definition 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20210 

By email to e-ORI@dol.gov

Dear Sir or Madam: 

On behalf of the more than 2 million retirees represented by the National Retiree Legislative 

Network (“NRLN”), I am formally requesting the opportunity to testify at the March 1, 2011 

“Fiduciary Definition Hearing” as announced in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 8. The NRLN 

is a non-partisan, non-profit grassroots coalition of retiree associations, individual retirees and preretirees formed to protect pension plans and retirement health care benefits. 

Set forth below is an outline of the topics we propose to address: 

1. The NRLN’s support for the proposed rule as it would provide greater protection 

to consumer retirees as plan participants. 

2. Per their submitted comments, the NRLN respectfully requests that this 

rulemaking proposal or a future proposal by the EBSA address other protections 

for plan participants who are currently at risk or may become at risk due to the 

lack of judicial authority over foreign fiduciaries. 

The NRLN would greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. 

Thank you very much. 

Sincerely, 

Marta Bascom 

Executive Director 

Marta.Bascom@Linkspace.net

(703)863-9611
EXHIBIT 21


                     ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SUBSIDIARIES
                                  As of 02/2001

Entity                                             Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                                                   or Organization

Artesyn International Ltd.                         Cayman Islands
Artesyn North America, Inc.                        Delaware
Artesyn Netherlands B.V.                           Netherlands
Artesyn Technologies Communications
Products, Inc.                                     Wisconsin
Artesyn Solutions, Inc.                            Delaware
Artesyn Delaware, Inc.                             Delaware
Azcore Corporation                                 Delaware
Artesyn Asset Management, Inc.                     Delaware
Artesyn Communication Products Investment,         Delaware
Inc.
Artesyn Communication Products, LLC                Delaware
Artesyn Delaware LLC                               Delaware
Real Time Digital, Inc.                            New Jersey
Artesyn FSC, Inc.                                  Barbados
Artesyn Austria GmbH                               Austria
Artesyn Austria GmbH & Co. KG                      Austria
Artesyn Holding GmbH                               Austria
Artesyn Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd.             Hong Kong
Artesyn Ireland Ltd.                               Cayman Islands
Artesyn Cayman LP                                  Cayman Islands
Artesyn International Ltd.                         Cayman Islands
Artesyn Holdings (Ireland) Ltd.                    Ireland
C.P. Power Products (Zhong Shan) Co., Ltd.         People's Republic of China
Artesyn (U.K.) Ltd.                                United Kingdom
Artesyn Communications Products UK Ltd.            Scotland
Spider Software Ltd.                               Scotland
Spider Software, Inc.                              Massachusetts
Artesyn France S.A.R.L.                            France
Artesyn Germany GmbH                               Germany
Artesyn Germany GbR                                Germany
Artesyn GmbH & Co. KG                              Germany
Artesyn Elektronisch Gerate Beteiligungs-und       Germany
Verwaltungs GmbH
Artesyn Hungary Elektronikai kft                   Hungary
Artesyn Technologies Intellectual Property         Hungary
    Licensing Liability Company
Artesyn Energy Systems S.P.A.                      Italy
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles G. Sherman and others, Appellants.

Judgment and conviction affirmed. Opinion by Landon, J.
From: Glenn Posey [mailto:glen.posey@comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:33 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Subject:  RIN 1210‐AB33

From:  Glenn Posey

4908 S. 313th Place,

Auburn, WA  98001

Email:  glen.posey@comcast.net

I have read the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  It is good to offer the choice of an annuity to

plan participants, but I oppose forcing participants to convert all of their savings to a Lifetime

Stream of Income.

First, although many people may not have much financial knowledge, that is why we have the

options of contributing to a managed fund.  During the last Bear market, I transferred 90% of

mine first to Treasury bonds,  then to a safe fund that invested in corporate bonds.  I did not

lose as much as people that rode the market to the bottom.  I have also had training in technical

analysis, and can read and understand charts.  I have traded stocks and commodities.

Second, the last question under number 23 concerns me.  It says, “Should the assumptions used

to convert accounts into a lifetime stream of income payments be dictated by regulation, or

should the Department issue assumptions that plan sponsors could rely upon as safe harbors?”  

Do the Agencies plan to convert all retirement savings to an annuity?  If so, what will be the

investment?  Will the Agencies force us to invest in Treasury Bonds so that the money can be

spent now, and we receive a stipend when we retire?

Number 38 says, “Would making a lifetime annuity or other lifetime income product the default

form of benefit payment have an impact on employee contribution rates?  If so, in which

direction and why?”  If an annuity was my only option, I would not contribute to it.  I am 58

years old and plan to retire in a few years.  Two years ago, Congressman Adam Smith told us at a

town hall meeting that the National Debt was 9.3 trillion dollars and that something like three‐

fourths of the budget went to pay for entitlements.  The drastic increase of the National Debt

can only lead to higher interest and high inflation.  My original plans were to save my retirement

savings for contingencies and to supplement my Social Security.  Since high inflation will quickly

erode my buying power, I am going to withdraw all of my savings and buy my retirement

property when I am 59 and a half.

I am very impressed with all of the effort that went into writing this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making.  You have considered many aspects of the issue.  The final comments that I want to

submit are that “One size does not fit all”.  Some people are more fiscally responsible than

others.  While my friends preferred to rent, I bought real estate.  While some of them leased

BMW’s, I saved and invested my money.  We should all be concerned about the well‐being of
retirees, but if they were irresponsible in their youth, I should not be penalized by giving them

my savings now.  The best thing to do for them is to help them find a nice SRO in a safe

neighborhood.

                                                                                                Glenn Posey
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 517 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 517

   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend the 
   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to 
                      affordable pharmaceuticals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2002

Mrs. Thurman submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend the 
   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to 
                      affordable pharmaceuticals.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
Speaker shall, 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. 1862) to amend the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide greater access to affordable 
pharmaceuticals. 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 Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. The bill shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole shall accord priority in recognition to 
Representative Brown of Ohio to offer an amendment. 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. 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.
    Sec. 2. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has 
come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the 
House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under 
clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for 
further consideration of the bill.
                                 <all>
```
----

(2004/C 84 E/0606)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Animal welfare and subsidies following the reform of the CAP

When the reform of the CAP enters into force, subsidies for cattle farmers will be specifically linked to compliance with EU basic requirements in terms of animal health and welfare. Farmers who fail to observe these requirements will be subject to cuts in direct payments, as well as the sanctions generally applicable.

How will farms be assessed for animal welfare?

How does the animal welfare factor tie in with subsidies for breeders of fighting bulls, who earn their living by repeatedly hiring out their animals for bullfights, during which they are left to face hours of torture, including being injured with lances, having their horns set on fire and being hunted into the sea? Does the Commission intend to reduce these farms' subsidies on a permanent basis, since it is clear that their very nature means that they cannot meet the minimum animal welfare requirements?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In the Commission's declaration which accompanied the agreement on the Council Regulation on the reform of the CAP (Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1)) it is foreseen that the control of the farmers in respect of their cross-compliance obligations will normally be the responsibility of the official services which currently monitor compliance with the relevant animal welfare rules.

The agency responsible for the payment of aid will apply sanctions on the basis of these controls.

The Commission is currently drafting the necessary detailed rules on this subject, in accordance with the above-mentioned declaration.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, which was adopted in September 2003, following the Parliament's opinion, provides that direct payments are subject to cross-compliance, as from 1 January 2007, as regards animal welfare and in particular as regards Council Directive 98/58/CE of 20 July 1998 on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2). However, bull fighting animals are not covered by this Directive according to Article 1 (2)b thereof, which excludes ‘animals intended for use in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events or activities’. Moreover, Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 provides that any reduction or exclusion from payments ‘shall only apply if the non-compliance relates to a) an agricultural activity, b) an agricultural land of the holding ...’ Therefore, the treatment received by these animals in the bull ring is entirely outside the scope of both those Regulations.

Furthermore, the Commission is not aware that the welfare of potential fighting bulls, whilst they are being reared on the farm is, in practice, inferior to that of animals reared for other purposes.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003.

(2)OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

----
1210-AB32-2-1634.html[7/26/2015 9:21:34 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jy0-l6h5

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-2131

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Richard J White

Address:

Glenash Ct

Cincinnati, OH, 45242

Email: RJWhite2012@aol.com

Phone: 5138919226

General Comment

I most strongly oppose having the Federal government, and other government entities too, 'messing' with my

 relationship with my wealth advisors who I choose and trust. 

I suggest that the Federal government first get their own fiscal house in order (IE eliminate the huge debt which

 will soon destroy our republic is it continues to grow).

There is no constitutional way for the Federal government to be involved in this proposed rule.

The most effective way to reduce Federal government cost would be for a start, to eliminate the EBSA, saving

 the taxpayers millions of dollars and reducing the complexity of investing for retirement.
H. Res. 261

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 30, 2002.

Whereas the First Congress passed the Residence Act authorizing the establishment of a Federal Capital as the seat

of Government of the new Republic;

Whereas President George Washington, acting under the authority of the Residence Act, selected the present site of

the District of Columbia as the new Federal Capital and

seat of government;

Whereas President Washington, aided by then Secretary of

State Thomas Jefferson, took personal charge of the

plans for the development of the new seat of government;

Whereas President Washington decided that the public buildings of the new capital city should be faced in stone so

that these buildings would equal or exceed in beauty the

buildings of the established capitals of Europe and promote permanence and majesty on the Potomac;

Whereas President Washington, a boyhood resident of Stafford County, Virginia, recommended that the freestone

quarries on Aquia Creek in Stafford County be purchased

by the Commissioners of Public Buildings as stone quarries for the public buildings of the District of Columbia,

a recommendation acted on by Pierre L’Enfant, the planner of the new capital city;
2

•HRES 261 EH

Whereas the new quarries, later named Government Island,

became the major source of building stone for the Capitol, the White House, and numerous other public buildings in the District of Columbia;

Whereas there exists substantial evidence of 18th and 19th

century stone cutting and quarrying techniques on Government Island, and this physical evidence sheds light on

a valuable and informative chapter in the development of

the United States Capital; and

Whereas the Board of Supervisors and residents of Stafford

County, Virginia, have undertaken action to preserve

Government Island for posterity and to make it available

for the education and enlightenment of the public: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) recognizes the national historical significance of

the Aquia sandstone quarries of Government Island in

Stafford County, Virginia, for their substantial contribution to the construction of the new Capital of the United

States under the direction of President George Washington; and

(2) commends the Board of Supervisors and residents of Stafford County, Virginia, for their efforts to
3

•HRES 261 EH

preserve Government Island and to make it available for

visitation by the public.

Attest:

Clerk.
##### 



Exhibit 32.A Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004, of
El Paso CGP Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas L. Foshee, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify
(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Douglas L. FosheeDouglas L. FosheePresident and
Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) 
June 20, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Ray Mosher [mailto:mosherr@ix.netcom.com] 

Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 11:29 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Regarding your request for information about annuities in 401Ks, et. al. 

The basis for my comments is that ALL the money in my 401K is MINE. My 

contributions are obviously my money. The company contribution is part of my 

compensation/benefits. Therefore, it also is my money. 

I am strongly opposed to the government dictating any of the investment options in my 

401K. This pertains to any rules you are considering regarding annuities or annualizing 

of my 401K money. The investment options in my 401K should be between the 

company and the employees and labor unions, not the government. 

Annuities are a good option for a portion of some people's retirement money. But for 

many, or most, people there are better 401K options. 

Annuities carry a high cost, hence lower total return, compared with other 401K 

investment options. Those higher costs go into the pocket of the government, or 

insurance company, neither of which helps the 401K participant. 

Ray Mosher
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
10Q PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,991
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (5,413)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,287
<PP&E>                                          96,140
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (21,338)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,904
<BONDS>                                        113,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           119
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,820
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,226
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (96,383)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,498)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,753)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)


</TABLE>
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Qof webMethods, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, MaryDridi, the Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice Presidentof the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.       Date: February 14, 2005     /s/ MARY DRIDI             Name: Mary Dridi
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00046-CR

CHARLES ROBERT MAYFIELD, SR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 50901-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In Gregg County, Charles Robert Mayfield, Sr., waived a jury trial and entered an open 

plea to obstruction or retaliation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(c). After pleading true to 

one enhancement paragraph, the trial court sentenced Mayfield to twelve years’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, Mayfield claims the trial court erred by imposing duplicative court costs and fees in 

this case and in his companion cause number 06-24-00045-CR.1 For the reasons provided in the 

opinion in Mayfield’s companion cause number 06-24-00045-CR, we sustain this point of error. 

We find the duplicative costs should be struck in this cause number. In the judgment, the “Court 

Costs: $290.00” should be modified to “Court Costs: $0.” 

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 30, 2024

Date Decided: September 27, 2024

Do Not Publish

1We address Mayfield’s companion cause number 06-24-00045-CR in a separate opinion.