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

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table For 2011 Valuation Dates 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# ERISA Section 4044 Mortality Table for 2011 Valuation Dates

This mortality table is used to determine the present value of annuities in involuntary terminations and distress terminations of single-employer plans, as discussed in 29 CFR 4044. This mortality table is also available in EXCEL.

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables page.

November 29, 2018

##           Related Information      

Subscribe to Interest Rate Updates
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2022

No. 04-22-00232-CV

CHAMPION FOOD SERVICE, INC. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. 

Appellants / Cross-Appellee

v.

PROALAMO FOODS, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. 

Appellees / Cross-Appellant

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-10530

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants’ brief was originally due August 8, 2022. We granted appellants’ first motion 

for extension of time, extending the deadline for filing the brief to September 7, 2022. On 

August 26, 2022, appellants filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the 

brief until September 27, 2022. After consideration, we GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellants to file their brief by September 27, 2022.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
IV

House Calendar No. 236

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 523

[Report No. 106–670]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by

permitting and encouraging the continued expansion of electronic commerce through the operation of free market forces, and other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 12, 2000

Mr. SESSIONS, 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 (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce by electronic means by permitting and encouraging

the continued expansion of electronic commerce through

the operation of free market forces, and 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 (S. 761) to regulate interstate commerce

4 by electronic means by permitting and encouraging the

5 continued expansion of electronic commerce through the
2

HRES 523 RH

1 operation of free market forces, and other purposes. All

2 points of order against the conference report and against

3 its consideration are waived. The conference report shall

4 be considered as read.

House Calendar No. 236

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 523

[Report No. 106–670]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 761) to regulate

interstate commerce by electronic means by permitting and encouraging the continued expansionof electronic commerce through the operation offree market forces, and other purposes.

JUNE 12, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
### §950s. Conviction of lesser offenses

An accused may be found guilty of an offense necessarily included in the offense charged or of an attempt to commit either the offense charged or an attempt to commit either the offense charged or an offense necessarily included therein.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2607.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 950s, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2624, related to conviction of lesser included offense, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
IV

House Calendar No. 202

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 470

[Report No. 106–573]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3039) to amend the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act to assist in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 11, 2000

Mr. REYNOLDS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3039) to amend

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to assist in

the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other

purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 3039) to amend the Federal Water

6 Pollution Control Act to assist in the restoration of the
2

HRES 470 RH

1 Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes. The first reading

2 of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall

3 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal4 ly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi5 nority member of the Committee on Transportation and

6 Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be con7 sidered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill

8 shall be considered as read. During consideration of the

9 bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of

10 the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis

11 of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused

12 it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record

13 designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.

14 Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The

15 Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) post16 pone until a time during further consideration in the Com17 mittee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any

18 amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum

19 time for electronic voting on any postponed question that

20 follows another electronic vote without intervening busi21 ness, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting

22 on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.

23 At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amend24 ment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

25 House with such amendments as may have been adopted.
3

HRES 470 RH

1 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

2 the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

3 intervening motion except one motion to recommit with

4 or without instructions.
House Calendar No. 202

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 470

[Report No. 106–573]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3039)

to amend the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct to assist in the restoration of the ChesapeakeBay, and for other purposes.

APRIL 11, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
What is an

operational viewpoint? the elements of JTF-RH operations and the tasks and 

 activities completed in order to safely and expeditiously

 defuel the red hill bulk fuel storage facility

RISK REDUCTION

- 253 repairs, enhancements and modifications

- test management PLAN

- quality management plan

- training and certification

- hazard assessments

Reducing the likelihood and severity of a mishap through

identification, analysis and implementation of mitigation strategies

response

- Spill kits and secondary containment throughout the 

 facility, pier, and harbor

- Diversion barriers & increased pumping capacity in the 

 event of spill reclamation

- Interagency coordination and integration

- roving security & Fire watch

- spill response drills & exercises

Measures put in place to eliminate or control an immediate threat 

to the environment or human safety

PROTECT AQUIFER

- FRENCH DRAIN SEALING

- GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL SEALING

- VALVE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT

- SOIL VAPOR POINTS AND VAULT SEALING

- SUMP STATION ADDITIVE BARRIERS

Over 400 incremental measures implemented throughout the facility to

protect the aquifer and to minimize environmental impacts during defueling

STAY CONNECTED!

DOWNLOAD THE

JTF-RH APP

operational

viewpoints
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4340]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO-250-LLWO252000]


Notice of Use Authorizations; Special Recreation Permits, Other 
Than on Developed Recreation Sites; Adjustment in Fees

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is adjusting certain 
special recreation permit fees for various recreation activities on BLM 
administered Public Lands and related waters. The BLM is adjusting the 
minimum fee for commercial, competitive and organized group activities 
or events.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judi Zuckert, Recreation and Visitor 
Services, 202-912-7093.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice establishes that effective on 
March 1, 2011, the special recreation permit minimum fee for commercial 
special recreation permits is $100 per year. The minimum fee for both 
competitive and organized group activities or events is $5 per person 
per day, and the minimum fee for an assigned site is $200 per permit. 
The BLM Director is authorized to periodically adjust fees by the 
regulations found at 43 CFR 2832.31(b). The next fee adjustment is 
scheduled for March 1, 2014. The intended effect of the fee calculation 
process is to ensure that fees cover administrative costs of permit 
issuance, a fair return to the U.S. Government for use of the public 
lands and approach free market value in certain cases. The BLM, in 
coordination with the Forest Service automatically adjusts the minimum 
commercial, competitive, organized group and activity special 
recreation permit fees and minimum assigned site fee every 3 years. 
These fees are calculated and adjusted based on the change in the 
Implicit Price Deflator Index (IPDI). The IPDI is published every 
February as a part of the ``Economic Report of the President'' to 
Congress. The IPDI is also available from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis at the following Web site: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=13&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010.
    The previous fee schedule went into effect on April 1, 2008. 
Commercial and reserved site fees are rounded to the nearest $5. 
Competitive and group use fees are rounded to the nearest $1. 
Individual States also have the option of imposing application fees 
and/or establishing higher minimum fees for special recreation permits.

    Authorities: 43 U.S.C. 1740, 16 U.S.C. 6802, and 43 CFR 2932.32.

Andy Tenney,
Acting, Division Chief, Recreation and Visitor Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-4340 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
§ 293.1 What is the purpose of this part? This part contains: ( a ) Procedures that Indian Tribes and States must use when submitting Tribal-State gaming compacts and compact amendments to the Department of the Interior (Department); and
( b ) Procedures and criteria that the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) will use for reviewing such Tribal-State gaming compacts or compact amendments.
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.122 Who may serve as a qualified expert witness? ( a ) A qualified expert witness must be qualified to testify regarding whether the child's continued custody by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child and should be qualified to testify as to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian child's Tribe. A person may be designated by the Indian child's Tribe as being qualified to testify to the prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian child's Tribe.
( b ) The court or any party may request the assistance of the Indian child's Tribe or the BIA office serving the Indian child's Tribe in locating persons qualified to serve as expert witnesses.
( c ) The social worker regularly assigned to the Indian child may not serve as a qualified expert witness in child-custody proceedings concerning the child.
§ 162.586 When will an amendment, assignment, sublease, or leasehold mortgage of a WSR lease be effective? ( a ) An amendment, assignment, sublease, or leasehold mortgage of a WSR lease will be effective when approved, even if an appeal is filed under part 2 of this chapter, except: ( 1 ) If the amendment or sublease was deemed approved under § 162.572(b) or § 162.580(b), the amendment or sublease becomes effective 45 days from the date the parties mailed or delivered the document to us for our review or, if we sent a letter informing the parties that we need additional time to approve or disapprove the lease, the amendment or sublease becomes effective 45 days from the date of the letter informing the parties that we need additional time to approve or disapprove the lease; and
( 2 ) An assignment that does not require our approval under § 162.574(b) or a sublease that does not require our approval under § 162.578(b) becomes effective on the effective date specified in the assignment or sublease. If the assignment or sublease does not specify the effective date, it becomes effective upon execution by the parties.
( b ) We will provide copies of approved documents to the party requesting approval, to the tribe for tribal land, and upon request, to other parties to the lease document.
### §163. Role of Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff

(a) Communications Through Chairman of JCS; Assignment of Duties.—Subject to the limitations in section 152(c) of this title, the President may—

(1) direct that communications between the President or the Secretary of Defense and the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands be transmitted through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and

(2) assign duties to the Chairman to assist the President and the Secretary of Defense in performing their command function.

(b) Oversight by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may assign to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsibility for overseeing the activities of the combatant commands. Such assignment by the Secretary to the Chairman does not confer any command authority on the Chairman and does not alter the responsibility of the commanders of the combatant commands prescribed in section 164(b)(2) of this title.

(2) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the spokesman for the commanders of the combatant commands, especially on the operational requirements of their commands. In performing such function, the Chairman shall—

(A) confer with and obtain information from the commanders of the combatant commands with respect to the requirements of their commands;

(B) evaluate and integrate such information;

(C) advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense with respect to the requirements of the combatant commands, individually and collectively; and

(D) communicate, as appropriate, the requirements of the combatant commands to other elements of the Department of Defense.

(Added Pub. L. 99–433, title II, §211(a), Oct. 1, 1986, 100 Stat. 1013.)
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.37

                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is made as
of May 20, 1999 by and between FirstWorld Communications, Inc. and Sheldon S.
Ohringer.

                                   Recitals

     A.  The parties entered into an Employment Agreement (the "Agreement")
dated as of September 28, 1998, with a Commencement Date of October 1, 1998.

     B.  The parties wish to amend the Agreement for the limited purposes set
forth in this Amendment.

                                   Agreement

     In consideration of the mutual promises of the parties set forth in this
Amendment and other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     1.  Section 5(e)(i) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:

          "If the Company consummates a Qualified Initial Public Offering (as
          defined in Section 5(d) above) with a price of at least $10.00 per
          share (before giving effect to any subdivision (by any stock split,
          stock dividend, recapitalization or otherwise), combination (by
          reverse stock split or otherwise) or other adjustment in the number of
          outstanding shares of the Company as determined on a fully diluted
          basis made without the receipt of consideration to the Company after
          the Commencement Date) before April 1, 2000, the Company shall pay
          Executive a cash payment of $4,207,500 in accordance with the
          provisions of Section 5(e)(iv) hereof."

     2.  The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall continue in full
force and effect.

     3.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which will be deemed to be an original but all of which together will constitute
one and the same instrument. This Amendment may be delivered by facsimile.


<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first above written.


                               FirstWorld Communications, Inc.


                               By:   /s/ Jeffery L. Dykes
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Jeffrey L. Dykes,
                                  Senior Vice President, General Counsel
                                  and Secretary


                               Sheldon S. Ohringer


                                     /s/ Sheldon S. Ohringer
                               -------------------------------------------------
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 00-63 LAR R Y J OR DAN , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore HOL DAWAY, IVERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m a No ve mbe r 29 , 19 99 , d e c isi on of the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (B VA or B oard) that, inter alia, de termined that the ve tera n had not ra ised a va lid claim of cle ar a nd unmistakable er

ror ( CUE) as to a N ovember 25, 1977, reg ional office (RO) de cision. The par ties fi le d b ri e fs , a

nd the Court

su bs e qu e ntl y

or de re d th e m to fi le su

pp le me nta l pl e a din g s a s to why , in light of the enac tment of the Ve tera ns Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) , Pub.L .No. 106-475, 11 4 St at. 2 09 6 (No v. 9, 20 00 ), the matte r o n a pp e a l sh ou ld n ot be re mand e d. Th e ve te ra n' s r e sp on se argued ag ainst a re mand, and the Secre tary ' s argued in favor of a rema nd, in light of the e nactment of the VCAA. Followingthe filingof the supplementa l pl ea d i n gs , the Court decide d Livesay v . Principi , 15 Vet.App. 165 (2001) (finding that VCAA i s not applicable to CUE matters). Also re levant is the decision of the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circuit in Disabled Americ an Veterans v. Gober , 2 34 F .3 d 6 82 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 0) (h old ingtha t f a ilure to com ply

wi th p le a din gre qu ir e me nts when a ssertingCUE in BVAdecision could not be valid basis to deny such asse rtion of CUE and invalidating 38 C.F .R. § 20.1404(b) ( 1999) to extent that itsanctions such de nial, which cr eate s res judicata e ffe ct under

38 C.F.R. § 20

. 1 4 04(c) ), cert. de nied , 1 21 S.Ct . 1 60 5 ( 20 01 ); se e als o 66 Fe d.Reg . 35902, 35902-03 (J uly 10, 2001) (revising § 20.1404(b) so as "to provide that the Boar d will dism iss such motions [ to dismi ss for fa ilure to comply with pleadingrequire m ents] without prejudice to r efiling ")

. Finally , the Court is also conce rned a bout the extent to which principles of res judicata should a

pply , as a g ener al matter inde pendent of the re gulation, to a final VA or BV A decision deny

ing a CU E cl aim on the g round that it fails to meet CUE plea ding r equire ments set forth in Fugo v. De rwinski , 6 Vet.App. 40, 43 ( 1993). Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that, within 30 da y s afte r the date of this orde r, the a ppellant file a

nd serve on the Secr etar

y a supplementa l brief a ddressingthe impact, if any , of re cent, pr ece dential ca se law a nd principles of r es judicata

on this appeal. It is further2

ORDERED th a

t, w it h in 30 da y s of servic e of the appellant' s supplemental brief , the Secr etar

y file a r esponsive supplementa l brief. DA TE D: Janu ary

16 , 2 00 2 PER CU RIAM

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8065

ANTHONY JUNIOR BARNHILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02130-F)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Junior Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Junior Barnhill seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Barnhill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED