alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

LEGAL PRSCESSING 4 _ (fp 2-
PUBLICATION & : REGULATION f} ECMBUZAC SEP 0 8 2010
NCH

As of: September 08, 2010

PUBLIC fern cps 16 200

Posted: September 08, 2010
SUBMISSION comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0869
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Gregg daniel Rubinstein
Address:

NYC, NY,
Submitter's Representative: NY Chiropractic Council
Organization: 57th Street Chiropractic & wellness center
Government Agency Type: State

General Comment

08/16/10

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
Department of Health and Human Services

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC

P.O. Box 8016

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status
as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health
Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by
PPACA, especially as of January 1, 2014 when most of the reform components (Insurance
Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play.

The average consumer has a broad definition of “benefits.” Consumers view their health plan

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Pr... 9/8/2010


Page 2 of 2

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan.
It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its
application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one
area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits,
does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the
employee.

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion of the employee population will
remain outside the PPACA as of January 2014 based on the current rules. While I understanc the
difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded
individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact of the
legislation.

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether

a group health plan is “in or out.” The decisions the federal government makes today will
determine the outcomes fo

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Pr... 9/8/2010
EXHIBIT 32.2



McDATA Corporation



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of McDATA Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January
31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 23, 2004 |  | /s/ Ernest J. Sampias                                       
|                       |  | Ernest J. Sampias                                           
|                       |  | Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
# Appendix E

Phantom 2 Vision+ Pilot Tr aining Guide V1.1

12 pages follow

(Source: http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 2

- vision

- plus/download )Page intentionally left blank
# Jornal Oficial C 151/8 de

| | ISSN 1725-2482 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 151 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 47.o ano8 de Junho de 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2482

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 151

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

47.o ano8 de Junho de 2004

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Comunicações |
| | Comissão |
| 2004/C 151/1 | Taxas de câmbio do euro | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

I   Comunicações

Comissão

2004/C 151/1

Taxas de câmbio do euro

1

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

I Comunicações

Comissão

| 8.6.2004 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2004

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 151/1

---

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

7 de Junho de 2004

(2004/C 151/01)

1 euro=

| | Moeda | Taxas de câmbio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | dólar americano | 1,2319 |
| JPY | iene | 135,36 |
| DKK | coroa dinamarquesa | 7,4335 |
| GBP | libra esterlina | 0,67025 |
| SEK | coroa sueca | 9,1333 |
| CHF | franco suíço | 1,5242 |
| ISK | coroa islandesa | 87,33 |
| NOK | coroa norueguesa | 8,1860 |
| BGN | lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | libra cipriota | 0,58300 |
| CZK | coroa checa | 31,270 |
| EEK | coroa estoniana | 15,6466 |
| HUF | forint | 251,75 |
| LTL | litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lats | 0,6638 |
| MTL | lira maltesa | 0,4266 |
| PLN | zloti | 4,6492 |
| ROL | leu | 40 803 |
| SIT | tolar | 239,1400 |
| SKK | coroa eslovaca | 39,950 |
| TRL | lira turca | 1 816 967 |
| AUD | dólar australiano | 1,7521 |
| CAD | dólar canadiano | 1,6592 |
| HKD | dólar de Hong Kong | 9,6024 |
| NZD | dólar neozelandês | 1,9569 |
| SGD | dólar de Singapura | 2,0996 |
| KRW | won sul-coreano | 1 427,96 |
| ZAR | rand | 7,9842 |

Moeda

Taxas de câmbio

USD

dólar americano

1,2319

JPY

iene

135,36

DKK

coroa dinamarquesa

7,4335

GBP

libra esterlina

0,67025

SEK

coroa sueca

9,1333

CHF

franco suíço

1,5242

ISK

coroa islandesa

87,33

NOK

coroa norueguesa

8,1860

BGN

lev

1,9558

CYP

libra cipriota

0,58300

CZK

coroa checa

31,270

EEK

coroa estoniana

15,6466

HUF

forint

251,75

LTL

litas

3,4528

LVL

lats

0,6638

MTL

lira maltesa

0,4266

PLN

zloti

4,6492

ROL

leu

40 803

SIT

tolar

239,1400

SKK

coroa eslovaca

39,950

TRL

lira turca

1 816 967

AUD

dólar australiano

1,7521

CAD

dólar canadiano

1,6592

HKD

dólar de Hong Kong

9,6024

NZD

dólar neozelandês

1,9569

SGD

dólar de Singapura

2,0996

KRW

won sul-coreano

1 427,96

ZAR

rand

7,9842

---

(1)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

---
**Exhibit
      32.1**








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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
      Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Edward J. Graham


-----------------------------------------------------


Name:  Edward
      J. Graham


Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      9, 2007
I 

08/09/2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ill IRS-20 1 0­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthese 

regulations. 

MICA-!ft, £ QLtUA/A Ai 

3g C{). 31 sr­

'l3ftlf 0 1I1IJ/ E.., /If;;- ()7t)(} L 

t~
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-20381 Conference Calendar

__________________ J. LEON GONZALEZ LONGORIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus STANLEY G. SCHNEIDER, TROY MCKINNEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-96-744
- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J. Leon Gonzalez Longoria, federal prisoner #59761-079, appeals the dismissal of his civil suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Longoria asserts that the district court erred in characterizing his lawsuit as having been brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that he brought aNo. 96-20381 -2- claim of legal malpractice against his attorneys under diversity jurisdiction. Assuming arguendo that Longoria's complaint alleged legal malpractice under Texas law, his claim lacks merit. Longoria does not have a cause of action under Texas law because he has not been exonerated and his actions are the sole, proximate cause of his indictment and conviction. See Peller v. Hughes & Luce , 909 S.W.2d 494, 498 (Tex. 1995). For this reason, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court dismissing the action as frivolous. The motion to stay the appeal is DENIED. AFFIRMED.
U.S. Coast Guard Seizes Heroin Shipment in Gulf of Oman
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  A U.S. Coast Guard fast response cutter seized 310 kilograms of heroin worth an estimated U.S. street value of $11 million from a fishing vessel while conducting patrols in the Gulf of Oman, May 31. USCGC Glen Harris (WPC 1144) was operating as part of Combined Task Force (CTF) 150, one of four task forces under the Combined Maritime Forces. The fast response cutter arrived in the U.S. 5th Fleet region in January and operates from Bahrain where Combined Maritime Forces is headquartered with U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and U.S. 5th Fleet. Combined Maritime Forces is the largest multinational naval partnership in the world. The U.S.-led international naval force has 34 member-nations, which have increased regional patrols to locate and disrupt unlawful maritime activity.
2/12/2016

From: Cogliano, Gerain 

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 1:08 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: EO 12866 Review of RMP NPRM---Outline of New Section in RMP RIA

Importance: High

Attachments:

Bulleted Outline 

for new RIA Section 5.7_2-12-16.docx

Hi Danielle, 

Attached is an outline for a new section in Chapter 5 of the RIA to address OMB's concerns.

If possible, it would be extremely helpful if we could get feedback either later today or first thing 

Tuesday on whether the outlined approach satisfies OMB's concerns so that we can draft the section.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks!

Gerain 
Attachment: Outline for new Section 5.7 to be inserted before Total Costs at the end of Chapter 5

Outline for new Section 5.7 to be inserted before Total Costs at the end of Chapter 5

2/12/2016

5.7 Cost Uncertainties Associated with Prevention Program Provisions

Introduction

 This section examines uncertainties associated with costs of actions that may result from the 

information gathered and/or analyzed in the proposed prevention program requirements

 Discuss the targeting of these provisions to failure of a prevention program (either applying 

after an RMP accident or in a sector with high accident rates)

Third-Party Audit

 Purpose of compliance audits and potential for actions resulting from information evaluated by 

a third-party

o Audits identify deficiencies with Program 2 or Program 3 RMP rule requirements

o Bias of auditing could impact information gathered

 Potential for expenditures-Include examples of audits that could lead to expenditures to correct 

deficiencies with the rule

 Discuss how and whether expenditures should accrue to the rule

 Request for comment

Incident Investigation/Root Cause

 Purpose of existing incident investigation requirements and proposed root cause analysis 

requirements 

 Potential for expenditures-Include examples of investigation findings from the root cause 

analysis that might involve alternative or additional expenditures

 Discuss how and whether expenditures should accrue to the rule

 Request for comment

STAA

 Purpose of the proposed provision to analyze safer alternatives and feasibility

 Potential for additional voluntary capital expenditures 

o Discuss wide variability in potential costs

o Examples of STAA implementation

 Discuss how and whether expenditures should accrue to the rule

 Request for comment

Preamble will include a summary of this section and refer to the RIA for further information. The 

preamble will request data, studies/analyses and costs that could assist EPA in determining how to 

accrue costs for these provisions in the rule.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00030-CR

__________________

SOPHIA PEREZ HEATH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-01-00864-CR 

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, in which the State agreed to cap her 

punishment at twenty years of confinement, appellant Sophia Perez Heath pleaded 

guilty to aggravated kidnapping. After conducting an evidentiary sentencing 

hearing, the trial judge found Heath guilty and imposed a sentence of twenty years 

of confinement. 

Heath’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s 

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See 
2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978). Heath filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal 

Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs 

or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 

no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the 

cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We reviewed the 

appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues 

support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 W. SCOTT GOLEMON

 Chief Justice

Submitted on February 3, 2021

Opinion Delivered March 3, 2021

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1 Heath may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
CENTCOM exercises new forward headquarters in Qatar
 By None  , U.S. Central Command
  MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (Oct. 14, 2009) — As part of a long-planned training evolution, United States Central Command is deploying about 750 people from its Tampa headquarters to its new forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base, Doha, Qatar.This deployment is not in response to any recent or ongoing operations. The primary purpose of the deployment is to exercise the CENTCOM staff's ability to seamlessly transition command and control of operations from its headquarters in Tampa to the new headquarters in Qatar in the event of a crisis in the CENTCOM area of responsibility or a natural disaster in Florida.The last time CENTCOM deployed to its forward headquarters was August 2008, when the staff similarly exercised its continuity of operations plan.
**EXHIBIT 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    CT Communications, Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following    Registration Statements:     (i) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 33-59641)    pertaining to the Restricted Stock Award Program     (ii) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 33-59645)    pertaining to the 1995 Comprehensive Stock Option Plan     (iii) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-15537)    pertaining to the 1996 Director Compensation Plan     (iv) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-38895)    pertaining to the Omnibus Stock Compensation Plan     (v) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-65818)    pertaining to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan and the 2001    Employee Stock Purchase Plan     (vi) Registration Statement    (Form S-8No. 333-119873)    pertaining to the Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan     (vii) Registration Statement    (Form S-3No. 333-65846)    of CT Communications, Inc.     of our report dated March 7, 2007, with respect to the    consolidated balance sheet of CT Communications, Inc. and    subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006, and the related    consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,    stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended    December 31, 2006, and the 2006 financial statement    schedule, and our report dated March 7, 2007 with respect    to CT Communications, Inc. management’s assessment of the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CT    Communications, Inc. included in this Annual Report    (Form 10-K)    of CT Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31,    2006. /s/  Ernst &    Young LLP     Charlotte, North Carolina    March 7, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,438,992               2,807,887
<SECURITIES>                                   122,786                 116,681
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,380,274              14,899,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                   107,500                 107,500
<INVENTORY>                                  2,551,724               2,331,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,008,306              22,683,227
<PP&E>                                     219,689,824             194,501,417
<DEPRECIATION>                             105,514,615              94,329,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             257,695,210             183,634,358
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,873,701              16,695,089
<BONDS>                                     20,000,000              20,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          112,500                 125,000
<PREFERRED>                                    397,000                 406,800
<COMMON>                                    38,584,516              35,748,327
<OTHER-SE>                                 136,184,586              83,428,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               257,695,210             183,634,358
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           105,591,594              91,725,394
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               83,223,191              70,272,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,397,523                 855,899
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               603,458                 433,747
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,575,048               1,491,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             38,765,926              22,308,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                15,697,657               8,926,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         23,068,259              13,382,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,068,269              13,382,410
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.46                    1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.44                    1.44


</TABLE>
ISAF Commander Praises ANSF Efforts to Quell Violence
 By None  , ISAF Public Affairs Office
  KABUL, Afghanistan (Feb. 25, 2012) – “I want to thank those brave Afghan National Security Force members for the sacrifices they have made this week to minimize violence throughout the country,” said ISAF Commander Gen. John R. Allen.  “For many years, these brave ANSF soldiers and policemen have stood together alongside us, shoulder to shoulder, shohna ba shohna, in dutifully seeking to protect the Afghan population from a merciless insurgency.” “In the wake of this week’s ongoing violence, we honor the sacrifices of our Afghan brothers in arms,” added Allen.  “Their courage and steadfast resolve in maintaining their integrity, their professionalism and their commitment to providing the Afghan population a bright future is an example to all Afghan citizens.”