alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Debra Conner

VP Group & Voluntary Claims

Sun Life Financial U.S.

Sun Life Assurance

Company of Canada 

One Sun Life Executive Park

Wellesley Hills, MA 02481-5699

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada 

is a member of the Sun Life Financial group of companies. 

www.sunlife.com/us 

12/11/17

Submitted electronically via e-ORI@dol.gov

Mr. Timothy Hauser

Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20210

Re: Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability Date (RIN 

1210-AB39)

Dear Acting Assistant Secretary Hauser:

On behalf of Sun Life Financial, we appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department with our 

comments in regards to the review of the rule amending disability claims procedures (81 Fed Reg. 92316 

(Dec. 16, 2016))( the “Regulation”) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(“ERISA”). 

Sun Life strongly supports the Department’s work to re-examine the amended disability claims procedures

and we appreciate the Department’s willingness to review additional industry information to better 

understand how the amended disability claims procedures could negatively impact claimants and 

policyholders. 

Sun Life participated in the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) industry survey that provides the 

Department with the data you had requested. This data is included with ACLI’s comment letter.

We ask that the Department thoroughly review this information, and specifically ask that the Department 

note the percentage of claims that the industry approves, the percentage of claims that are denied, and the 

percentage of those denials that are ultimately approved through the current appeals process. 

These figures demonstrate that the current ERISA disability claim procedures provide a level playing field 

for disability claimants, and provide disability claimants with a fair and impartial appeals process.

We also ask that the Department note that based on the estimated costs to implement these new regulations, 

costs that will result in the price of disability insurance increasing, and the estimated elasticity of demand for 

disability insurance, this regulation will ultimately lead to fewer Americans purchasing disability insurance. 
It should also be noted that while costs for disability insurance will increase and demand for disability 

insurance will decrease, the ACLI survey found that very few, if any, disability claims that would have been 

denied under the current disability claims procedures will now be approved based on the amended disability 

claims procedures. 

We thank the Department for their willingness to delay and review these new regulations, and look forward 

to continuing the dialogue on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Debra Conner

VP, Group Disability & Voluntary Claims

Sun Life Financial U.S.
Page 1 of 2

VISION _ sus
LEGA eat RS pions §— PLES H2-LC 2 3 2010
PUBLICATION & RES

As of: August 20, 2010

PUBLIC Bese ssee 200

posted: August 20, 2010
SUBMISSION Comments Duet August 16, 2910

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-2010-0010-0292
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

SS SS

Submitter Information

Name: gary w parsons
Address:
1603 s washington bivd

camanche, IA, 52730
—

General Comment

08-09-2010

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

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment 07
the interim final rule regarding health plans and “grandfather” status (Document ID IRS-2010-
0010-0001).

I believe the consumer protections included as part of the 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 of these

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010


Page 2 of 2

regulations.

Gary Parsons

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInformation Flow in the Launch Vehicle Design/Analysis ProcessThis paper describes the results of a team effort aimed at defining the information flow between disciplines at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) engaged in the design of space launch vehicles. The information flow is modeled at a first level and is described using three types of templates: an N x N diagram, discipline flow diagrams, and discipline task descriptions. It is intended to provide engineers with an understanding of the connections between what they do and where it fits in the overall design process of the project. It is also intended to provide design managers with a better understanding of information flow in the launch vehicle design cycle.Document ID20000012425Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHumphries, W. R., Sr.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Holland, W.*(Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Huntsville, AL United States)*Bishop, R.*(Sverdrup Technology, Inc. Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1999Subject CategorySpace Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-1999-209877M-955Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20000012425.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheet and unaudited condensed statement of
operations and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         233,962
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  641,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    958,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,873,666
<PP&E>                                         943,516
<DEPRECIATION>                               (380,007)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,039,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,697,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                         4,930
<OTHER-SE>                                   (206,873)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,039,360
<SALES>                                      1,121,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,609,212
<CGS>                                        1,110,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,098,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (578,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (578,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (578,120)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6548

MICHAEL BYNUM, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-99-49-AM)

Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 27, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Bynum, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Bynum, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Bynum v. Robinson, No. CA-99-49-AM (E.D. Va. Mar.

12, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ISAF Confirms Number 2 Insurgent Killed in Coalition Airstrike
 By None  , ISAF Public Affairs Office
  KABUL, Afghanistan (April 26, 2011) — The International Security Assistance Force confirmed their number two overall targeted insurgent in Afghanistan was killed during an airstrike in Dangam district, Kunar province, April 13. Al-Qaida senior leader Abu Hafs al-Najdi, also known as Abdul Ghani, a Saudi Arabian national, operated primarily from Kunar and traveled frequently between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He directed al-Qaida operations in the province, including recruiting; training and employing fighters; obtaining weapons and equipment; organizing al-Qaida finances; and planning attacks against Afghan and coalition forces. Abdul Ghani, and numerous other insurgents, including another al-Qaida leader, Waqas, were killed in the April 13 airstrike. Abdul Ghani was responsible for the coordination of numerous high-profile attacks. On the morning of his death, he reportedly directed the suicide attack that killed tribal elder Malik Zarin and nine other Afghan civilians. Throughout late 2010 and early this year, Abdul Ghani employed his network of insurgents against security force outposts throughout the province. These attacks included a December attack on a coalition forward operating base and two February attacks against an Afghan security force outpost. Abdul Ghani commonly instructed subordinate leaders to conduct kidnapping operations against foreigners traveling between Asmar and Asadabad, and he was responsible for directing suicide bomb attacks targeting U.S. government officials. Additionally, Abdul Ghani regularly circulated throughout Kunar, establishing insurgent camps and training sites, teaching insurgents explosive device construction and attack procedures. He was also a key financial conduit between Pakistan-based leaders and insurgent operatives in Afghanistan. Abdul Ghani was able to streamline control of assets and provide considerably more funding to insurgent fighters. This led to increased funds to provide weapons, explosives and equipment to multiple insurgent attack cells. Abdul Ghani had been the focus of coalition force efforts since at least 2007, and at the time of his death, was meeting Waqas. The two insurgents frequently worked together in coordinating attacks against Afghan and coalition forces.  The al-Qaida network and its safe havens remains a top priority for Afghan and coalition forces. In the last month, coalition forces have killed more than 25 al-Qaida leaders and fighters, and the death of Abdul Ghani marks a significant milestone in the disruption of the al-Qaida network.
----------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Page 1 of 1

/<56-11 ft.J I;) -fa 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION ~PUBLlCAnON & REGULATIONS 

BRANCH As of: August 20, 2010 

Received: August 09, 2010 PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: August 20, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2cbcd 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-2010-0010-0231 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Blanche L Natali 

Address: 

53 Westwood Rd 

Fairfield, CT, 06825 

Email: natali.gardens@gmail.com 

General Comment 

See attached file(s) 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0231.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https :llfdrns.erulemaking.netlfdms-web-agency IcomponentlsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/20/2010 
August 8, 2010 

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 

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

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2010­

0010-0001). 

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

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Therefore, very effort should 

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

Care Act (PP ACA) 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. 

Sincerely, 

Blanche Natali 

53 Westwood Rd 

Fairfield, CT 06825 

203.366.0234 

natali.gardens@gmail.com
Message From: Jerry R. Farrar
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:00 AM
To: Howard Cohn
Subject: Layoff November 30, 2003 and Mutual Agreement

Between what we had hoped  earlier this year,  even though we mutually  assessed
the  risks  back in June and July  2003,  and where we are  today,  it's a great
distance from where we had hoped to be. What it is, it is and so we need to move
forward.

1.         Effective,  November 30, 2003, we must lay you off. This situation is
           personally disappointing to me.

2.         The  employment  agreement  of June 18, 2003 is  rescinded  by mutual
           agreement subject to the following terms and conditions:

          a.  Medstrong agrees to the issuance of 350,000  non-qualified  shares
              of  MSRG  common  stock  at a  price  of  $0.01  per  share  to be
              immediately vested.

          b.  Medstrong  International  Corporation  acknowledges that salary is
              owed to Howard Cohn in the amount of $26,169.00, is accrued on the
              books and records of Medstrong  International  Corporation  and is
              payable as a priority liability.

          c.  Medstrong will pay for  continuation of health  insurance  through
              Cobra for a period of three months.

          d.  Medstrong will deliver a check for $1000.00 as discussed.

          e.  Howard Cohn agrees to waive stock  grants per  paragraph 5b of the
              employment agreement dated June 18, 2003,

          f.  Howard Cohn agrees to waive the severance  clause per paragraph 10
              of the employment agreement dated June 18, 2003.

          g.  Medstrong International  Corporation acknowledges that this Layoff
              and  Mutual  Agreement  has been duly  authorized  by the Board of
              Directors and the Board has agreed to all the terms and conditions
              stated above.

3.         Medstrong  International  Corporation  and Howard  Cohn agree that he
will assist in the  preparation of required SEC filings and accounting  closings
on an as needed basis as an outside consultant. Compensation for these duties to
be determined.


Howard,  my appreciation for your fine work. As stated,  the office continues to
be yours and any  services we can provide  you during this  period.  I will also
need your  assistance on various  issues from time to time, and hope you will be
able to fit us in when the situations  arise.  The objective is to  rehabilitate
the company and grow shareholder interest where we all benefit.

Sincerely,
JERRY
June 16, 2015

Mr

. Richard Terrill

P.O. Box 2220 Saratoga, CA 95070

Dear Mr. Terrill :

This is in response to your May 2, 2014 letter (public docket No. FAA

- 20 1 4

- 0296 ) submitted

to the Federal Aviation Administration to amend § § 61.155(d) and 61.165( f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR)

.

The FAA has considered your request . However, when the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements of 14 CFR Part 11, particularly those guidelines for processing petit ions for rulemaking found in § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or security con cerns the petition raises; 2) the priority of other FAA issues; and 3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

That petition for rulemaking, if amended, would amend the rule by allowing an Air Transport

Pilot ( ATP ) airplane category multiengine class rating to be added to an ATP airplane category single engine class certificate . In addition, it would focus more explicitly on the knowledge test to ensure candidates have properly demonstrated knowledge appropriate to their category class rating.

The FAA has a priority list for rulemaking that addresses many issues that are critical to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public. The FAA must prioritize its limited rulemaking resources so as to deliver the most value to the avia tion system as a whole. Although the issues raised in your petition may have merit, they do not address an immediate safety concern.

For th e reason s stated above , we are unable to process your requests and thereby deny your petition for rulemaking in acc ordance with 14 CFR § 11.73. Although the FAA has decided to deny the request s , your comments and reasons for a rule change will be considered if the2 agency undertakes future rulemaking in this area . Accor dingly, Docket No. FAA

- 201 4

- 0296 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
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 (0.09 MB)
 
 CPX ftx Counterterrorism 7th Cavalry Regiment 1st cavalry division field training exercise 3rd armored brigade combat team 3rd abct egypt 1st Cav. Div Command post exercise 2-7 CAV Bright Star 2017 Egyptian Mohamed Naguib Military Base BRIGHTSTAR Exercise Bright Star 17 U.S. Air Force U.S. Army USAF training Centcom 2nd Battalion U.S. Central Command partnership bilateral MILITARY
 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
#### Thomas Herbert, Appellant, v. Thomas E. Drake, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs..