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

mee REE-MPYI2-70

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS

BRANCH
[As of: September 08, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Posted: rail iear a
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-2010-0010-0839
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Karen L Erickson
Address:
127 West 79th Street, Suite 4
New York, NY, 10024
Email: drkarenerickson@msn.com
Government Agency Type: Federal
Government Agency: HHS

General Comment

August 14, 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

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.

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


Page 2 of 2

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.”

Karen Erickson, DC

https://fdms.erulemaking .net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 9/8/2010
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is effective as of March 17, 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by and between BKFS I MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and KIRK LARSEN (the "Employee") and amends that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of April 23, 2015 (the “Agreement”).  In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:


1.Section 3 of the Agreement is deleted and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof:  “Term.  The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of three (3) years ending on the third anniversary of the Effective Date or, if later, ending on the last day of any extension made pursuant to the next sentence, subject to prior termination as set forth in Section 8 (such term, including any extensions pursuant to the next sentence, the "Employment Term"). The Employment Term shall be extended automatically for one (1) additional year on the second anniversary of the Effective Date and for an additional year each anniversary thereafter unless and until  either party gives written notice to the other not to extend the Employment Term before such extension would be effectuated.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set forth above.
	
		
	 
	BKFS I MANAGEMENT, INC.


By:       /s/ Michael L. Gravelle                                                                      
Its:       Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

	 
	

KIRK LARSEN
            /s/ Kirk T. Larsen
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                             AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                    to the
                      Master Loan and Security Agreement
                           dated as of June 23, 1999
                                by and between
                            NC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
                                      and
                  GREENWICH CAPITAL FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC.

          This AMENDMENT is made this 23 day of October, 1999, by and between NC
CAPITAL CORPORATION, having an address at 18400 Von Karman, Suite 1000, Irvine,
California 92612 (the "Borrower") and GREENWICH CAPITAL FINANCIAL PRODUCTS,
INC., having an address at 600 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 (the
"Lender"), to the Master Loan and Security Agreement, dated as of June 23, 1999,
by and between the Borrower and the Lender (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms
used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such
terms in the Agreement.

     Subparagraph (iii) of the definition of Collateral Value in Section 1 of
the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

          "(iii)  the aggregate Collateral Value of Mortgage Loans that are
                  Second Lien Mortgage Loans may not at any one time exceed 10%
                  of the aggregate amount of Advances made to the Borrower
                  hereunder;"

     This amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of New York and the obligations, rights, and remedies of the parties hereunder
shall be determined in accordance with such laws without regard to conflict of
laws doctrine applied in such state.

     This amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall constitute an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute
one instrument.

     Except as amended above, the Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms.
<PAGE>

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and the Lender have caused this
amendment to be executed and delivered by their duly authorized officers as of
the day and year first above written.

                                         NC CAPITAL CORPORATION

                                                (Borrower)

                                         By:    /s/ JOHN KONTOULIS
                                         Name:  John Kontoulis
                                         Title: Senior Vice President

                                         GREENWICH CAPITAL
                                         FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC.
                                         (Lender)

                                         By:    /s/ ANTHONY PALMISANO
                                         Name:  Anthony Palmisano
                                         Title: Vice President
H0H060576 Analytical Report 1 .............................................. Sample Receipt Documentation 34 .......................................... Wet Chemistry 39

....................................................................... Sample Summary 40

................................................................ QC Summary 61

...................................................................... Raw Data 67

............................................................................ Anions 68 ................................................................................. Sample Receipt Documentation189 .......................................... Total Number of Pages 193 .........................................................
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51329 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DAMIAN GONZALEZ, also known as “Chico ”

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 1946

- 4

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Damian Gonzalez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Gonzalez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51329 Document: 00514122208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017No. 16

- 51329

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GR ANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-51329 Document: 00514122208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62785-62786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19770]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than October 13, 2023.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Brent B. Hassell, Assistant 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a290507070f041e19440b1a1a0603090b1e030504192a18030902440c18084405180d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df9cb0b2b2bab1abacf1beafafb3b6bcbeabb6b0b1ac9fadb6bcb7f1b9adbdf1b0adb8">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Southern Bancshares (N.C.), Inc., Mount Olive, North Carolina; 
to acquire up to 19.9 percent of the voting shares of Old Point 
Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
The Old Point National Bank of Phoebus, both of Hampton, Virginia.


[[Page 62786]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-19770 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### New York Market Gardeners’ Association, Respondent, *v.*The City of New York, Appellant.

. *New York Market Gardeners' Assn.*v. *City of New*York, 142 App. Div. 907, affirmed.

(Argued February 26, 1912;

decided March 19, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 30,1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover damages occasioned by the flooding of plaintiff’s lands through the negligence of defendant.

*Archibald Ii. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*and *Clarence L. Barber*of counsel), for appellant.

*William D. Caillard*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                       394
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                         50
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,774
<PP&E>                                           1,128
<DEPRECIATION>                                     443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                         912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,902
<SALES>                                          5,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,395
<CGS>                                            2,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (9)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  60
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,212)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
From: Mark E. Smith

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:00:18 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

With social programs being slashed, jobs that pay a living wage harder to find, a culture saturated with

porn and patriarchal values, and women's health clinics being defunded and bombed, it is the very least

we can do.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Mark E. Smith

1055 9th Ave #203

San Diego, CA 92101
#### Eliza L. Caskey, Respondent, v. William Shean, Appellant.

— Judgment and order affirmed. Opinion by

Bradley, J.;

Barker J., not sitting.
From: Bob Walsh [mailto:R.walsh@mchsi.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 8:49 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

The Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury (the "Agencies") are currently 

reviewing the rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the plan 

qualification rules under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to determine whether, and, if so, 

how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security 

of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement 

arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other 

arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement. 

 

My comments are on Item 13 

 

Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution 

plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default 

distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would 

such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship? 

• The assumption that some government entity knows more about what I should do with 

my money than I do is annoying to me. I know what my financial situation is and I 

understand the risk associated with my situation. I can decide to get an annuity when 

the time comes. I do not need the government to take my money away from me to give 

me lifetime income distribution. The social security mess is a good example of why the 

government needs to stay out of my retirement planning. The return on investment for 

the money I have paid in social security taxes is significantly less than what it would 

have been if I had been in charge of investing the money. The current social security 

system is not sustainable. Why doesn't the government fix that problem before the 

create new problems? 

• If you take my 401(k) account balance for the lifetime income distribution, how are you 

going to reduce the risk of inflation. My plan is to have part of my retirement income to 

come from an annuity and part of my income to come from investments. The 

investment income minimizes the inflation risk. Without that income my risk of 

running out of money is much higher. 

• On page Page 5 there is a statement that in part says "employees are not only 

increasingly responsible for the adequacy of their savings at the time of retirement, but 

also for ensuring that their savings last throughout their retirement years and, in many 

cases, the remaining lifetimes of their spouses and dependents". I fully understand that I 

am responsible for the adequacy of my savings. If the government stays out of my 

business I will be fully capable of providing for my family. With government assistance 

I am not as sure that I will be able to provide for my family. 

Bob Walsh 

3562 Deer Ridge Ct. 

Bettendorf, IA 52722
From: Marilyn Hacker

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Coverage of contraceptive services as preventive care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:58:21 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Marilyn Hacker

Professor (emerita)

Department of French

CUNY Graduate Center

New York, New York
GROVER SELLERS

A'PTIJRx*:Y

GMSEIULWL Honorable C. J. Wilde County Auditor Nueces County Corpus Christi,Texas Dear Mr. Wilde: OpinionNo. O-6496 Re: Matter of a county'sholding a special election for tax allocationand a constitutional amendment at the same t&me.

Your request for an opinion from this Department touching the above subjectmatter is as follows:

"Inasmuch as Nueces County and other counties will hold an election on August 28th coveringa constitutional amendment,would it be possible to hold this election, together with an election on the reallocationof taxes? If this is possible the county would be able to save a considerable amount of money by holding both electionsat the same time. Please advise whether there is any legal reason tkt we couldnot hold both the elections on the same date." There is no legal reason why your countymay not hold its election on the day set for the election involving the constitutional amendment. Of course, the two electionsare separate elections,and eachmust be held and conducted in all respects as such, but there is no reason why theymay not be held on the same day, by the same officers, and at the same voting boxes. We are handing you herewith copies of our OpinionsNos. 0-2853 and O-4872, which discussmore fully the questionhere decided, and we affirm the holdings theremade. Trusting that what we have said fully answersyour inquiry,we are Very truly yours, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Ocie Speer Assistant OS-m? Enclosures