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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 387 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 387

Providing for the expulsion of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., 
                   from the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2002

    Mr. Sensenbrenner submitted the following resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the expulsion of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., 
                   from the House of Representatives.

    Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the 
United States Constitution, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., be, 
and he hereby is expelled, from the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

House Calendar No. 219

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 552

[Report No. 107–696] 

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 

bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of 

Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Ms. PRYCE, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to 

accompany the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, 

and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider the conference report to ac3 company the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations 

4 for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and 

5 for other purposes. All points of order against the con-
2

HRES 552 RH 

1 ference report and against its consideration are waived. 

2 The conference report shall be considered as read. 

House Calendar No. 219

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 552

[Report No. 107–696] 

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of 

Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes. 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2002

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001138 27-JUL-2018 07:58 AM
Exhibit
23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-26977, 33-36379, 33-50746, 333-00733, 333-00749, 333-00757, 333-09387,
333-33327, 333-75383, 333-92155, 333-58526, 333-67472, 333-103653, 333-149500
and 333-149501 on Forms S-8 and 333-72034 on Form S-3 of our report dated May
23, 2008 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule
of Computer Sciences Corporation (the Company), which report expresses an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements and financial statement
schedule, and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment on April
1, 2006, SFAS No. 158, Employer’s Accounting for Defined
Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – An Amendment of FASB Statement
No. 87, 88, 106 and 132R on March 30, 2007 and FASB Interpretation No.
48, Accounting for Uncertainty
in Income Taxes, an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 on March 31,
2007 and of our report dated May 23, 2008 relating to internal control over
financial reporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the
effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting because
of a material weakness) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended March 28, 2008.





Deloitte
& Touche LLP





May 23,
2008
Exhibit 10.83

                                 SDR METRO INC.
                     27367 Tungsten Rd. -- Euclid, OH 44132
                        216-289-6500 -- Fax 216-289-6560


February 8, 2004

Herb M. Lustig
Invisa Inc.
4400 Independence Court
Sarasota, FL 34234
941-355-9361


Dear Herb,

This letter is to reconfirm our agreement to further extend the $600,000 payment
due described in the Note between Radio Metrix Inc. and SDR Metro Inc. dated
January 8, 2002 (the "Note"). The extension terms are as follows:

SDR Metro Inc. agrees to accept $250,000 as full and final payment of the Note
if the following installment payment schedule is maintained. Otherwise, if the
entire installment payment is not received on or before the due dates listed
below then the entire $600,000 payment minus any installment payments will be
due immediately and the Note will be in default. All other terms and conditions
remain the same including the 180-day period for right of redemption (described
in the Remedy Upon Default Agreement dated January 8th, 2002).

Payment Schedule:

Installment #1 - $100,000 due on or before February 8th, 2004.
Installment #2 - $ 75,000 due on or before March 8th, 2004.
Installment #3 - $ 75,000 plus quarterly 8% interest (according to Note) due
                 on or before April 8th, 2004.


Agreed and Accepted,

By: /s/ David L.E. Jones                    By: /s/ Herb M. Lustig
    -----------------------                     ------------------------
    David L.E. Jones                            Herb M. Lustig
    President                                   President and CEO
    SDR Metro, Inc.                             Invisa, Inc. (parent company of
                                                Radio Metrix)
#### Samuel Taylor, Appellant, v. John Mitchell and others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with • ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: October 25, 2017

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k1-8zf6-9l9g

Comments Due: December 11, 2017

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability 

Date

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0291

Claims Procedure: Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0384

Comment on FR Doc # 2017-22082

Submitter Information

Name: Bonny Rafel

Address: 17 Hanover Road Suite 410

Florham Park, NJ, 07932

Email: info@bgrafel.com

Phone: 973-845-2600

General Comment

I have reviewed the proposal that the Department of Labor delay for ninety days the 

applicability of the Final Rule amending the claims procedure requirements applicable 

to ERISA-covered employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits. My firm 

represents hundreds of disabled employees who have had their disability benefits 

denied under ERISA plans. We have expertise handling ERISA appeals. I commented 

on the proposed rules during the extensive notice and comment period in 2016. My 

comments along with those expressed by the industry representatives and counsel, 

were, no doubt considered by the DOL when enacting the Final Rule. The strict 

adherence to the deadlines for comment in 2016 mandated that all who wished to be 

heard, submit their opinions along with any supportive evidence. Just as ERISA 

imposes strict deadlines on my clients to submit evidence to support their claim, all 

interested parties to this Rule had their opportunity to submit evidence. That time has 

now passed.
Now, after the fact, the insurance companies and plan advocates seek to reopen the 

review and submit evidence that has thus far not been made available to the public. 

Their statistical analysis most certainly will weigh in favor of continuing to deprive 

disabled people of a fair and full review of claims contrary to 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-

1(h)(2)(iv).

To allege that enactment of the New Rule will drive up premiums sounds like the 

mantra always asserted by insurers to justify their actions. How can it be more costly 

to provide full and fair review of claims? It is their inaction, their failure to fairly 

adjudicate claims that lies at the heart of this New Rule to protect participants' rights. 

To open the Rule to further comment is to kick the can down the road once again, and 

deprive claimants. These individuals struggle every day with their disability and its 

impact on them financially. Insurers happily accepted premium dollars from healthy 

plan participants, but have turned into financially motivated claims management 

centers who must be subject to more control, which the Rule provides. The fact is, the 

Final Rule evenhandedly provided the disabled more open access to information 

generated by the plans and insurance companies, yet declined to enact some of the 

protections sought by plan participants. The Rule should go into effect and apply to all 

claims as of January 1, 2018.
### CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F

- 2004

- 176 Diffusion :



### A Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004 Page :

1 / 2

Cette consigne de navigabilité est publiée par la DGAC pour le compte

de l'AESA, autorité du pays de conception du matériel concerné. Cette consigne de navigabilité fait l'objet d'une

traduction en anglais.

Le texte français constitue la référence. Direction

générale

de

l’aviation

civile

France

Edition

du GSAC Un aéronef concerné par une consigne de navigabilité ne peut être utilisé

qu’en conformité avec les exigences de cette consigne de navigabilité,

sauf accord de l’autorité du pays d’immatriculation.

Airworthiness Directive(s) étrangère(s) correspondante(s) :

Sans objet Consigne(s) de navigabilité remplacée(s) :

Néant

Responsable de la navigabilité d u matériel :



### EUROCOPTER

Certificat(s) de type n° 168

Fiche(s) de donn ées n° 168 Type(s) de matériel(s) : 

### Hélicoptères AS 355

Chapitre ATA :



### 64 Objet :



### Rotor de queue

- Languette bord de fuite des pales arrière

1. APPLICABILITE

:

Hélicoptères AS 355 E, F, F1, F2 et N, équipés de pales arrière référencées : 355A 12.0040 tous points et

355A 12.0050 tous points, du numéro de série 8400 à 9224 inclus avant application de la fiche de

réparation FR n° 238 ou de la CT 64.10.00.872 (voir FME).

2. RAISONS :

Cette consigne de navigabilité (CN) fait suite à la découverte de plusieurs cas de décollements importants

de la languette de bord de fuite sur des pales arrière.

La perte de cette languette conduit à une augmenta tion importante du niveau vibratoire de l'appareil.

3. ACTIONS IMPERATIVES ET DELAIS D’APPLICATION :

Les mesures suivantes sont rendues impératives à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur de la présente

CN :

3.1. Au plus tard dans les 100 heures de vo l sans dépasser 3 mois (à la première échéance atteinte),

poser des rivets supplémentaires sur la languette de bord de fuite des pales référencées au § 1 selon

les directives décrites dans le § 2.B de l'Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 355 n° 64.00.04

cité en référence.

3.2. Avant montage de pales détenues en rechange et référencées au § 1, appliquer les directives

décrites dans le § 2.B de l'ASB en référence.

4. DOCUMENT DE REFERENCE :

Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 355 n° 64.00.04 "correspon d à la fiche de réparation FR n° 283".

(Toute révision ultérieure approuvée de cet ASB est acceptable).

n/CG

### CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F

- 2004

- 176 Diffusion :



### A Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004 Page :

2 / 2

5. DATE D'ENTREE EN VIGUEUR :

20 novembre 2004.

6. REMARQUE

:

Pour les questions concernant le contenu technique des exigences de cette CN, cont acter :

EUROCOPTER (STXI)

- Aéroport de Marseille Provence 13725 Marignane Cedex

- France

Tél. : 33 (0) 4 42 85 97 97

- Fax : 33 (0) 4 42 85 99 66

E

- Mail : Directive.technical

- support@eurocopter.com

7. APPROBATION :

Cette CN est approuvée sous la référ ence AESA n° 2004

- 10841 du 03 novembre 2004.
NOLAN, THOMPSON & LEIGHTON, PLC
Attorneys at Law
500] AMERICAN BOULEVARD WEST
595 SOUTHGATE OFFICE PLAZA
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55437

Mark M. NOLAN ‘TELEPHONE: 952-405-7171

RANDY V. THOMPSON

Rosert J. LEIGHTON, JR. s 2952:
EMAIL: RLEIGHTON@NM

LAW.COM

October 26, 2017

Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Via Email: E-ORI@dol.gov
Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room M-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue N.W.

Washington D.C. 20210

RE: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing Disability Benefits Examination
RIN No. 1210-AB39
Regulation: 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser:

I’ve been practicing law for the past 26 years and specifically in the area of ERISA disability
cases for the past 14 years. Our firm has handled hundreds of disability claims and we
understand the difficulty claimants have in pursuing disability benefits under the current law and
federal regulations.

I was very pleased when on December 19, 2016 the Department published a final regulation that
amended the existing claims procedures regarding ERISA-covered employee disability claims.
It was my understanding that the Department had delayed its applicability until January 1, 2018,
in order to provide adequate time for disability carriers to adjust to the new regulations, as well
as for claimants and attorneys to understand the changes that had been made. | strongly support
the Final Rule that was to be implemented on January 1, 2018 and am very disappointed that the
Department of Labor has now proposed a delay of 90 days for implementation of the new
regulations. I have seen how my clients have been adversely affected by the conduct of
disability insurance carriers over the course of the past 14 years, and it is finally time that
claimants be treated more fairly under this process.

Of great concern is that the insurance industry apparently now is attempting to delay and even
halt the new Final Rule that had been agreed to. The insurance industry apparently has
referenced a “confidential” study that now predicts an increase in premiums. Of course, that is
the insurance industry’s response to any proposed rule change that might actually benefit
American citizens. To the extent that any premiums would be increased to avoid illusory
coverage, my clients would welcome such a change if it means that insurance disability carriers
must more fairly review claims that are submitted by insureds.


October 26, 2017
Page 2

The effective date of the regulation should not be delayed, as all of the interested parties had an
opportunity to provide information to the Department during the rule-making process. It is time
for the Department of Labor to act on its previously determined need to modify the rules and
regulations regarding disability claims.

Very truly yours,

NOLAN, THOMPSON & LEIGHTON, PLC

Ie on

Robert J. Leig 5 Sry

RJL/kah
Editorial Note on Part 572
Editorial Notes: 1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 572.91 General description. ( a ) The representative newborn infant dummy consists of a drawings and specifications package that contains the following materials: ( 1 ) Drawing numbers 126-0000 through 126-0015 (sheets 1 through 3), 126-0017 through 126-0027, and a parts list entitled “Parts List for CAMI Newborn Dummy”; and,
( 2 ) A construction manual entitled, “Construction of the Newborn Infant Dummy” (July 1992).
( b ) The structural properties of the dummy are such that the dummy conforms to this part in every respect both before and after being used in dynamic tests specified in Standard No. 213 of this chapter (§ 571.213).
EXHIBIT 24.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
Zitel  Corporation  on Form S-8 (File No.'s 33-40361 and 33-47697) of our report
dated  October 24, 1996  appearing in Item 8 in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statement Schedule, which appears on page 42 of this Form 10-K.







Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
San Jose, California
December 20, 1996













                                     Page 45
```
**EXHIBIT 21.1

                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC.**

        21.1    -        The following are the names and jurisdiction of incorporation
                         of the subsidiaries of the Company:

                                                                 Jurisdiction
                               Names                             of Incorporation
                               -----                             ----------------

                         Collins Bus Corporation                 Kansas
                         Capacity of Texas, Inc.                 Texas
                         Mid Bus, Inc.                           Ohio
                         Wheeled Coach  Industries,
                            Inc.                                 Florida
                         Collins Ambulance Corp.                 Kansas
                         Collins Financial Services, Inc.        Kansas
                         Mobile Products, Inc.                   Kansas
                         Mobile-Tech Corporation                 Kansas
                         World Trans, Inc.                       Kansas
```
Page 1 of |
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION LANEY) 9 -1/
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS fi UB 270 wees onto

As of: August 24, 2010
Received: August 10, 2010

P U B L I Cc Status: Posted

Posted: August 24, 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-2010-0010-0321
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: STEPHEN ROBERT GOLDMAN
Address:
309 WOODBURY ROAD
HICKSVILLE, NY, 11801
Email: stephengoldman2@aol.com
Phone: 516-433-0147

General Comment

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number of people covered by PPACA.
Every patient should have the freedom go to the type of doctor of their choice.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/24/2010
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

___________

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-60495) and Form S-3 (File Nos.333-57501, 333-70229, 333-86037 and 333-86153)**of Alpharma Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated February 26, 2001 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K.
 

 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS L.L.P.

Florham Park, NJ

March 27, 2001**
Carroll,

Dec., 1899.

#### Banfill’s Petition.

Au execution sufficiently describes a judgment by giving its amount, file-names of the parties, the court in which and the term when it was rendered, without a more extended recital of prior proceedings.

An officer is not bound to search for goods before taking the body on a *capias*execution, and his return is not defective because it fails to state that he did so.

The rights of a debtor committed on a *capias*execution are not affected by a. failure of the creditor to give bond for the payment of prison charges.

Petition, for *habeas corpus.*The petitioner was committed to-jail upon a *capias*execution, issued by order of court, in proceedings brought against him by his wife for separate maintenance.

Three reasons were assigned why the petition should be granted: (1) That the execution did not contain a recital of the nature of the judgment upon which it was issued; (2) that the return of the-officer did not show that he searched for property before taking the body,— the execution being in the alternative; (3) that no bond, was given to pay prison charges. The petition was dismissed, subject to exception.

*Josiah R.*Robbs, for the petitioner.

*Sewall W. Abbott,*for the defendant.

*133Peaslee, J.

Tlie execution described tlie judgment by giving its amount, the names of tlie parties, tlie court in which and the term when it was rendered. The form is that used since 1718 (Laws, *ed.*1725, *p.*111; P. S., *c.*231, s. 11), and correctly described the judgment. *Avery*v. *Bowman,*40 N. H. 453, 455. It is not apparent that any purpose material to this ease would have been served by a more extended recital of the prior proceedings.

The return on the writ is sufficient. “ From the earliest time, it is believed to have been the received opinion that the sheriff has the election to take the goods or the body in the first instance, and is not bound to search for goods at all.” *Wilcox,*J., *Kinsley*v. *Hall,*9 N. H. 190, 194; *State*v. *Roberts,*52 N. H. 492, 499. As the officer was not bound to search for goods, his return is not defective because it does not state that he did so.

The original act providing for giving security for prison charges (Laws 1838, *c.*370) was intended “to furnish the jailer a certain provision for the payment of the prison charges, and to exempt the debtor from the liability to be detained for their payment, by requiring the creditor himself to provide for them.” *Buck*v. *Meserve,*16 N. H. 422, 426. The statute now provides that the debtor shall not be detained for the non-payment of prison charges in any case where a bond is required. P. S., *c.*235, s. 11. His rights are not affected by the failure to give a bond, and he has no reason to complain of tlie omission. It is not necessary to consider whether the case is one where the jailer could have demanded security.

*Hxception overruled.*

Blodgett, C. J., and Pike, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
----

----

I Tagħrif

Kummissjoni

----

Rati tal-kambji għall-Euro (1)

L-30 ta' April 2004

(2004/C 127/01)

1 euro =

----

(1)

Sorsi: ta' referenza tar-rati tal-kambju ippublikati lill- ECB.

----

----

AVVIŻ LIL QARREJ

Edizzjoni speċjali tal-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea li għandha t-testi ta' l-atti ta' l-instituzzjonijiet u tal-Bank Ċentrali Ewropew adottati qabel l-adeżjoni se tiġi ppubblikata fil-lingwa Estona, Ungeriża, Latvjana, Litwana, Maltija, Pollakka, Slovakka, Slovena u Ċeka. Il-volumi ta' din l-edizzjoni se jidhru progressivament bejn l-1 ta' Mejju u l-aħħar tas-sena 2004.

Il-pubblikazzjoni hi pendenti, il-verżjoni elettronika tat-testi tinsab fuq EUR-Lex.

L-indirizz tas-sit EUR-Lex hu: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/fr/accession.html

----
#### In the Matter of the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company to Acquire Title to certain Real Estate of William A. Judson and another.

Follett, J., not sitting.