alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         242,453
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               258,453
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,055
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,249
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,453
<SALES>                                        267,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               4,005,212
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,005,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03


</TABLE>
#### § 701.1 General provisions.

This part contains the rules that the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (“Amtrak”) follows in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Title 5 of the United States Code, section 552. Information routinely provided to the public (*i.e.,* train timetables, press releases) may be obtained at Amtrak's Web site *www.amtrak.com* without following Amtrak's FOIA procedures.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.94 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
## R e q u e s t f

o r I n f o r m a t i o n

­ F A

A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 2 6 5 9

9

­ A W A

­ A V S

­ 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n s ( F A

A )

S e n t : T h u r s d a y

, A u g u s t 2 7

, 2 0 1 5 4 : 0 6 P M

T o : c a r l @ j i r e h c o m

. c o m

D e a r M r

. U l b r i c h :

T h i s l e t t e r i s t o i n f o r m y o u t h a t t h e f

o l l o w i n g i n f

o r m a t i o n i s m i s s i n g f r o m y

o u r p e t i t i o n ( D o c k

e t N o

. F A A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 2 6 5 9 )

. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y f

o r t h e F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F A A ) t o p r o c e s s y o u r p e t i t i o n

.

P r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e M o t i o n P i c t u r e a n d T e l e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s M a n u a l ( M P T O M ) w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d b y O r d e r

8 9 0 0

. 1

, V o l u m e 3

, C h a p t e r 8

, S e c t i o n 1

. I f y o u w i s h f o r u s t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t t h i s m a n u a l a n d r e m o v e

c l o s e d

‐ s e t f i l m i n g f r o m y

o u r p r o p o s e d o p e r a t i o n p l e a s e i n f o r m o f u s o f y

o u r i n t e n t i o n b y t h e r e q u e s t e d

r e s p o n s e d a t e l i s t e d b e l o w

.

P l e a s e s u b m i t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ( n o n

‐ p r o p r i e t a r y ) t o y o u r d o c k e t a t w w w

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g o v a n d s u b m i t a n y

p r o p r i e t a r y i n f

o r m a t i o n t o t h e F A A H e a d q u a r t e r s o r e l e c t r o n i c a l l y v i a e m a i l t o 3 3 3 e x e m p t i o n s @ f a a

. g o v

. I f y

o u w a n t

u s t o p r o c e s s y

o u r r e q u e s t a n y f u r t h e r

, w e m u s t r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e d a b o v

e b y 9 / 1 0 / 1 5

. I f w e d o n o t

r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

, w e w i l l c l o s e t h e d o c k e t w i t h o u t n o t i f

y i n g y o u f u r t h e r

.

I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s

, p l e a s e f

e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t ( 2 0 2 ) 2 6 7

­ 4 2 6 4

.

S i n c e r e l y

,

D a n N g o

F A A O f f i c e o f R u l e m a k i n g
Afghan elections show courage and vision
 By None  , ISAF Public Affairs Office
  100918_elections
 KABUL, Afghanistan (Sept. 18, 2010) — The commander of international forces in Afghanistan and the NATO senior civilian representative today praised those who participated in, organized and secured the nation’s parliamentary elections.“The people of Afghanistan sent a powerful message today,” said Gen. David Petraeus, ISAF commander. “The voice of Afghanistan’s future does not belong to the violent extremists and terror networks. It belongs to the people.” Gen. Petraeus also stated, “I commend, in particular, the Afghan National Security Forces, who performed so bravely today in safeguarding a weapon with greater potential than any other - the people’s right to vote and to have a say in the future of their country. It was an honor on this day, especially, for NATO ISAF forces to support our Afghan partners. We also salute the Afghan Electoral Commission personnel, the team of experts from the U.N., and the Afghan and international observers for their contributions in the preparation for and the conduct of today’s elections.”“Today’s elections have once again shown that the people of Afghanistan want the chance to elect their leaders,” said Ambassador Mark Sedwill, NATO senior civilian representative to Afghanistan. “For NATO, ISAF and our Afghan partners it’s clear that the future of Afghanistan remains one where violence cannot overthrow the democratic will of the people. NATO stands firm in its support to Afghanistan and in its shared fight against terrorism and extremism that seeks to destroy the successes of the past nine years.”Today’s elections are the first parliamentary elections planned, organized and managed by Afghans since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Security for the elections was led by Afghan National Security Forces with support from ISAF.
Page 1 of 2

5EE MEY (LSC
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION f C wus 5 209
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

As of: August 05, 2010

P U B LIC Received: August 05, 2010

Posted: August 05, 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-2010-0010-0032
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Rebecca Normington
Address:
1515 Saint Joseph Ave
Marshfield, WI, 54449
Email: normington.rebecca@securityhealth.org
Organization: Security Health Plan of Wisconsin, Inc.

General Comment

1) Concerns we have with grandfathered status regulations and our preferred stance on the
issue/reasons for that stance

« We believe plan structure changes such as going from traditional insurance to a health
reimbursement arrangement, when members retain the same level of benefits and employers
fund the full amount of the change, should not affect grandfathered status.

e Employer groups moving from a fully insured plan to a self-funded plan should remain
grandfathered if no other changes occur to employees‘ benefit level. The rules state that going
from self-funded to fully insured does not result in a loss of grandfathered status. The opposite
should also be clearly stated: Moving from fully-insured to self-funding does not result in the loss
of grandfathered status.

¢ Employer groups changing from an HMO plan to a point-of-service plan, or vice versa, should
remain grandfathered if the benefit level for network providers remains the same for members,
even though a new contract is issued.

2) To what extent is grandfathered status worth it? Is it worth it for employers to try and remain
grandfathered? How does it affect the strategy of the exchange?

We believe grandfathered status is worthwhile only for very healthy groups that can retain a

preferred rating status after 1/1/2014 for as long as they remain healthy. If many groups op* out
of the community rating system, the integrity of community rating would become degraded -- so

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 8/5/2010


Page 2 of 2

encouraging grandfathered status for healthy groups undermines the success of the reforms. But
to the extent others play this game, we will need to as well. Many provisions of the law either
apply to grandfathered groups, or Security Health Plan has already implemented them as

corporate initiatives. Therefore, we do not anticipate significant impacts, other than as statec in
the concerns above.

https://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 8/5/2010
§ 665.13 Test report and manufacturer certification. ( a ) The operator of the Bus Testing Facility shall implement the performance standards and scoring system set forth in this part.
( b ) Upon completion of testing, the operator of the facility shall provide the scored test results and the resulting test report to the entity that submitted the bus for testing and to FTA. The test report will be available to recipients only after both the bus manufacturer and FTA have approved it for release. If the bus manufacturer declines to release the report, or if the bus did not achieve a passing test score, the vehicle will be ineligible for FTA financial assistance.
( c ) ( 1 ) A manufacturer or dealer of a new bus model or a bus produced with a major change in component or configuration shall provide a copy of the corresponding full Bus Testing Report and any applicable partial testing report(s) to a recipient during the point in the procurement process specified by the recipient, but in all cases before final acceptance of the first bus by the recipient.
( 2 ) A manufacturer who releases a report under paragraph (c)(1) of this section also shall provide notice to the operator of the facility that the test results and the test report are to be made available to the public.
( d ) If a tested bus model with a Bus Testing Report undergoes a subsequent major change in component or configuration, the manufacturer or dealer shall advise the recipient during the procurement process and shall include a description of the change. Any party may ask FTA for confirmation regarding the scope of the change.
( e ) A Bus Testing Report shall be available publicly once the bus manufacturer makes it available during a recipient's procurement process. The operator of the facility shall have copies of all the publicly available reports available for distribution. The operator shall make the final test results from the approved report available electronically and accessible over the internet.
( f ) The Bus Testing Report and the test results are the only official information and documentation that shall be made publicly available in connection with any bus model tested at the Bus Testing Facility.
~fmffitoo@n :ilR$TPXmn1ITI~~~ -·- ... · ... ·.· --.··· ..... ' . ,· .··.-. -~.-·.· ·: , ... -,, ' 

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
From: Dan Rausch [mailto:dan@upnorthtradingco.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:40 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN: 1210-AB33

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments regarding the issue of lifetime income

options for participants and beneficiaries in retirement plans.  Due to the cost savings for plan

sponsors, the trend has been and will continue to be away from defined benefit plans and to

defined contribution plans so this is an important issue.  My comments will be limited to the

issue of whether the proposed rules, if or when they are finalized, will allow voluntary access to,

and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a stream of income after

retirement (hereafter called an annuity) versus requiring such use (question 13).

It is my belief that having the option to take an annuity from a defined contribution plan or IRA

would be beneficial for certain individuals, however, I am against requiring such use for

everyone.  Currently there is no uniform system in place to allow an individual access to an

annuity upon retirement from an employer who sponsors a defined contribution plan or has an

IRA.  This could easily be changed by allowing tax free direct rollovers from defined contribution

plans or IRAs to annuity issuers with the future requirement that all annuity payments would be

fully taxable unless there has been non‐deductible contributions made to the plan.  In such a

case, the portion of the annuity payment that represents a return of basis would be tax free.  

This way, anyone who desires an annuity at retirement could get one and would not force those

participants who want to have more control over their investments and timing of their

distributions into such an arrangement.

If your intent with these proposed rules goes beyond encouraging the use of annuities at

retirement and instead looks to require participation in employer plans and restrict investment

choices, I would have to say I am opposed to that.  Where I believe it is very important for

everyone to take control of their own future in retirement by saving enough throughout their

working career, I in no way in favor of forcing someone to do so.  If someone is forced to work

their entire life because they have not saved enough to retire or chose current gratification

instead of future security, that is their issue.    We already have a system in place in this country

to provide retirement security for workers.  It is called social security.  If you really want to

ensure everyone’s retirement is more secure, turn your focus to social security and figure out

ways to improve it and make it more secure.

Thank you again for allowing me to submit my comments.

Daniel Rausch, CPA

Controller

Unique Identity, Inc.

dba: Up North Trading Company; Up North Trading Sales & Marketing

ASI 86464  |  SAGE 65874  |  PPAI 223058

21725 Hanover Ave

Lakeville, MN  55044‐9039

952‐944‐6100

952‐944‐6134 (fax)
dan@upnorthtradingco.com

www.upnorthtradingsales.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:54 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Trying to take over peoples 401k and IRSs under the guise of giving them a "t-bill option" will lead 

to a larger taxpayer-revolt than is currently underway in the Tea Party movement.

 

Since I was 23 ive been getting by with only 85% of my income, so that I can save 15%... going 

without the fancy car, or the flashy clothes, or the vacations, so that I would have a nest egg.

 

Keep you hands off my retirement accounts.
§ 806.4 Mandatory review for declassification. ( a ) Requests for mandatory review for declassification under section 3-501 of E.O. 12065 must be in writing and should be addressed to: National Security Oversight Officer, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594.
( b ) The requester shall be informed of the date of receipt of the request at the Board. This date will be the basis for the time limits specified by section 3-501 of E.O. 12065. If the request does not reasonably describe the information sought, the requester shall be notified that, unless additional information is provided or the request is made more specific, no further action will be taken.
( c ) When the Board receives a request for information in a document which is in its custody but which was classified by another agency, it shall refer the request to the appropriate agency for review, together with a copy of the document containing the information requested, where practicable. The Board shall also notify the requester of the referral, unless the association of the reviewing agency with the information requires protection. The reviewing agency shall review the document in coordination with any other agency involved or which had a direct interest in the classification of the subject matter. The reviewing agency shall respond directly to the requester in accordance with the pertinent procedures described above and, if requested, shall notify the Board of its determination.
From: Kim Luckabaugh [mailto:kim.luckabaugh@verizon.net] 

Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:09 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

To Whom it Concerns, 

I was just recently made aware of this public notice (no thanks to the statist media who did a 

huge disservice to all Americans by not alerting us to it). So, please pardon the fact that this 

message is beyond your deadline for comments. 

My opinion? No, I am not in favor of this option. Social Security is a bankrupt travesty and 

now the government, i.e. Obama Administration, wants to seize every American's personal 

savings. The reason we have 401k(s) and Thrift Savings to help us prepare for retirement 

as we all knew that Social Security was going belly up and won't be available when we 

retire. So, no! The government is NOT ENTITLED to my money, my husband's money or 

any American's personal savings! You already tax it when we have to start using it! 

This is nothing short of THEFT and you do not have the Constitutional right to STEAL our 

money! Americans all across the country have woken up to your statist deeds and we are 

standing up and fighting back! 

Kim Luckabaugh 

Fairfax, VA
#### David H. King, Plaintiff, v. The United States Life Insurance Company of New York, Defendant.

New trial denied and judgment ordered for *the,*plaintiff on the verdict. Opinion by

Barker, J.
~.'- ­

· ~. 

August 10,2010 

Office of Consumer Infonnation and Insurance Oversight 

Departme~t 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 refonn components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

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

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 understand 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 for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustaInable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

~pportunitY to comment on this regulation .. 

Ronald . Braun, DC
#### Le Dette A. Bostwick, Plaintiff, v. Emily P. Beach, Executrix, etc., and Individually, Defendant.

Motion for new trial denied, with costs, against Emily P. Beach, personally. Opinion by

Boardman, J.;

Hardin, P. J., not sitting.