alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.172 What happens after the hearing? ( a ) Within 30 days after the end of the hearing or any post-hearing briefing schedule established by the ALJ, the ALJ shall send all parties a recommended decision by certified mail, return receipt requested. The recommended decision shall contain the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law on all the issues. The recommended decision shall also state that the Indian tribe or tribal organization has the right to object to the recommended decision.
( b ) If the appeal involves the Department of Health and Human Services, the recommended decision shall contain the following statement: Within 15 days of the receipt of this recommended decision, you may file an objection to the recommended decision with the Secretary of Health and Human Services under 25 CFR 900.173. An appeal to the Secretary under 25 CFR 900.173 shall be filed at the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, DC 20201. You shall serve copies of your notice of appeal on the official whose decision is being appealed. You shall certify to the Secretary that you have served this copy. If neither party files an objection to the recommended decision within 15 days, the recommended decision will become final.
( c ) If the appeal involves the Department of the Interior, the recommended decision shall contain the following statement:
Within 15 days of the receipt of this recommended decision, you may file an objection to the recommended decision with the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) under 25 CFR 900.173. An appeal to the IBIA under 25 CFR 900.173 shall be filed at the following address: Board of Indian Appeals, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22203. You shall serve copies of your notice of appeal on the Secretary of the Interior, and on the official whose decision is being appealed. You shall certify to the IBIA that you have served these copies. If neither party files an objection to the recommended decision within 15 days, the recommended decision will become final.
[61 FR 32501, June 24, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 31701, June 4, 2010]
§ 83.33 What will the proposed finding include? The proposed finding will summarize the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for OFA's proposed finding regarding whether the petitioner meets the applicable criteria. ( a ) A Phase I negative proposed finding will address that the petitioner fails to meet any one or more of the following criteria: Governing Document (§ 83.11(d)), Descent (§ 83.11(e)), Unique Membership (§ 83.11(f)), or Congressional Termination (§ 83.11(g)).
( b ) A Phase II proposed finding will address whether the petitioner meets the following criteria: Indian Entity Existence (§ 83.11(a)), Community (§ 83.11(b)), and Political Influence/Authority (§ 83.11(c)).
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-44 

December 8, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(2) Plans Covered. Government Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of November 11, 1975, in connection with an inquiry by * * * You Asked this

Corporation's position as to the applicability of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter the

"Act") to pension plans which are maintained, but not established, by public agencies or political subdivisions. 

Section 4021(b)(2) of the Act provides that Title IV does not apply to any plan 

established and maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of any

State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, or to which the

Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 applies and which is financed by contributions required under that Act . . . 

The legislative history indicates that this exemption from the general provisions of Title IV was provided because

it was believed that "the ability of the governmental entities to fulfill their obligations to employees through their taxing

powers is an adequate substitute for termination insurance." S. Rep. No. 93-383, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 81 (1973). To

construe the word "established" [*2] strictly would, therefore, frustrate the intent of Congress in providing the

exemption. The Congressional rationale for § 4021(b)(2) indicates that the exemption should be applied to the situation

presented when a governmental entity takes over a plan. Therefore, it is the position of the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation that, generally, a pension plan maintained by a public agency or political subdivision which has been taken

over from a private business is excluded from the provisions of Title IV. 

I hope this is of assistance. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Executive Director
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044 Retirement Assumptions 
-  Retirement Rate Category Tables 2023 

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.

# Retirement Rate Category Tables 2023

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main XRA webpage.

**TABLE I-23 SELECTION OF RETIREMENT RATE CATEGORY**

**For valuation dates in 2023**

December 7, 2022
|                          |
|--------------------------|
|                          |  |
| 001-10315                | 63-0860407 |
| (Commission File Number) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                     |   |

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION |
|   | By: | /s/  John P. Whittington |
|   | Name: | John P. Whittington |
|   | Title: | Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary |
IV

House Calendar No. 298

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 611

[Report No. 106–936]

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2311) to revise and extend the

Ryan White CARE Act programs under title XXVI of the Public Health

Service Act, to improve access to health care and the quality of care

under such programs, and to provide for the development of increased

capacity to provide health care and related support services to individuals

and families with HIV disease, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 4, 2000

Mr. GOSS, 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 (S. 2311) to revise

and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under

title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve

access to health care and the quality of care under

such programs, and to provide for the development of

increased capacity to provide health care and related

support services to individuals and families with HIV

disease, and for other purposes.
2

HRES 611 RH

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2311) to revise

4 and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under

5 title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve

6 access to health care and the quality of care under such

7 programs, and to provide for the development of increased

8 capacity to provide health care and related support serv9 ices to individuals and families with HIV disease, and for

10 other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for

11 amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute

12 printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pur13 suant to clause 8 of rule XVIII shall be considered as

14 adopted. The previous question shall be considered as or15 dered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without

16 intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the

17 bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the

18 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

19 on Commerce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or

20 without instructions.

House Calendar No. 298

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 611

[Report No. 106–936]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2311) to

revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Actprograms under title XXVI of the Public HealthService Act, to improve access to health care andthe quality of care under such programs, and toprovide for the development of increased capacityto provide health care and related support services to individuals and families with HIV disease,and for other purposes.

OCTOBER 4, 2000

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas. -1- United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT



## ___________ No. 97-1040

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court of the * Western District of Arkansas. Chester Sanders, III, * * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1997 Filed: August 25, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ch ester Sanders, III appeals the 70-month sentenc e imposed by the district court after he pleaded guilty to 1 aiding and abetting an armed bank robbery, in violatio n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113 and 2. For reversal, Sa nders argues-2-

th at the court clearly erred when it denied him a n acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.-3-

“Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1 allows the distric t cour t to reduce the offense level of a defendant wh o
# clearly

demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for hi s offense. & ” United States v. Evans , 51 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1. 1(a) (1995)). The defendant carries the burden o f establishing acceptance of responsibility, see Unite d States v. Morales , 923 F.2d 621, 628 (8th Cir . 1991), and the court & s decision to de ny such a reduction is afforded great deference and will not be disturbed unless it i s clearly erroneous, see Evans , 51 F.3d at 766.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err i n denying Sa nders the reduction based, among other things, on Sanders & s failure to pl ead guilty until the morning of trial when the jury panel was present. See U SSG § 3E1.1, comment. ( n.1); United States v. Yell , 18 F.3d 581, 583- 84 (8th Cir. 1994). Sanders & s reliance on United State s v. Knight , 905 F.2d 189 (8th Cir. 1990), is m isplaced, as the district court & s decision in that case did not involv e the timeliness of the defendant & s guilty plea. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court i s affirmed. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHT H CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**IDEAEDGE, INC.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IdeaEdge, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Collas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
#### Charles W. Howe, Respondent, v. Clarence M. Smith, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred ; Kruse, J., not sitting.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

74-7 

December 17, 1974 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4006(a)(3) Premium Rates. Initial Rates 

OPINION: 

 This is a confirmation of the telephone call by Mr. * * * of our staff to Ms. * * * of your office regarding your

inquiry as to whether a former employee without vested rights should be counted in computing the premium payment

declaration. 

A former employee who has no vested benefits under the plan and has not been a participant at any time during the

plan year for which the premium is being paid, need not be counted for purposes of computing the premium. Thus, if

your plan is on a calendar year basis and an employee-participant terminated his employment prior to January 1, 1974

you should not count him unless he has a vested right in the plan. If he was an active participant at any time during the

plan year, i.e. 1974, you should count him whether or not he has vested rights in the plan. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §9253. Flying officer rating: qualifications

Only officers of the Air Force in the following categories may be rated as flying officers:

(1) Officers who have aeronautical ratings as pilots of service types of aircraft or as aircraft observers.

(2) Flight surgeons.

(3) Officers undergoing flight training.

(4) Officers who are members of combat crews, other than pilots of service types of aircraft, aircraft observers, and observers.

(5) In time of war, officers who have aeronautical ratings as observers.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 538, §8691; renumbered §9253, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §806(b)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1833.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8691 | 10:291c.10:291c–1.10:291e. | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §13a (8th, 9th, and 11th provisos); added July 2, 1926, ch. 721, §2 (4th sentence, less 2d proviso), 44 Stat. 781; June 16, 1936, ch. 587, §3, 49 Stat. 1524; Oct. 4, 1940, ch. 742 (last proviso), 54 Stat. 963. |
| | | June 24, 1948, ch. 632 (2d proviso under "Finance Department"), 62 Stat. 650. |

10:291c–1.

10:291e.

10:291c (proviso) and the words "after June 30, 1948", in 10:291c–1, are omitted as executed. The definition of the term "flying officer", in 10:291c, originally was a definition of the term "flying officer in time of peace" as provided by section 2 of the Act of July 2, 1926, ch. 721, 44 Stat. 781. Section 1 of the Act of October 4, 1940, ch. 742, 54 Stat. 963, eliminated the words "in time of peace". As a consequence of that amendment, 10:291e (1st 26 words) is omitted as surplusage. Clause (2) is substituted for 10:291c–1 (less last 10 words). The words "commissioned officers or warrant", in 10:291c–1, are omitted as surplusage. In clause (4), the last 19 words are substituted for the words "any other".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 8691 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-29 

March 1, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(g) Termination by Plan Administrator. Appointment of Trustee

4042(b) Termination by PBGC. Appointment of Trustee 

OPINION: 

 This is in reference to * * * order of June 27, 1975 appointing the * * * * * * A copy of that Order is enclosed. 

As you are aware, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC received a notice of plan termination

submitted by * * * prior to issuance of the above Order. The function of the PBGC is to guarantee the payment of basic

benefits of plans covered by Section 4021 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). We

notified the plan administrator on October 23, 1975 that the * * * plan was not covered by Section 4021 of the Act and

accordingly, that we intended to close the case absent the submission of additional information relevant to the plan's

coverage within 30 days of receipt of the October 23 letter. We received two such submissions. We did reconsider and

have now finalized our decision. The plan is not covered by Section 4021 of the Act. Copies of our initial determination

letter and the letters in response to * * * requests for reconsideration are enclosed. 

In view of the fact the above-mentioned Order was based, [*2] as we interpret it, on the provisions of Sections 4041

and 4042 of the Act, we wish to advise the Court of our view that only plans covered by Section 4021 of the Act may

be subject to trusteeships grounded on the provisions of Section 4041 or 4042 of the Act. We related, upon request, this

interpretation on November 25, 1975 to * * * Counsel for the Court-appointed trustee. A copy of our letter to * * * is

enclosed. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1701p. Contents of report to President and Congress

The annual report made by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to the President for submission to the Congress on all operations provided for by section 1701o of this title shall contain pertinent information with respect to all projects for which any loan, contribution, or grant has been made by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the amount of loans, contributions and grants contracted for.

(Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VIII, §817, 68 Stat. 648; Pub. L. 90–19, §10(j), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 23; Pub. L. 97–375, title II, §207(a), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1824.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Housing Act of 1954, and not as part of the National Housing Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–375 struck out requirement for the inclusion of pertinent information respecting all builders' cost certifications required by section 1715r of this title, including amounts paid by mortgagors to mortgagees for application to the reduction of the principal obligations of the mortgages pursuant to that section.

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" and "Department of Housing and Urban Development" for "Housing and Home Finance Administrator" and "Housing and Home Finance Agency", respectively.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(A) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: May 15, 2006/s/ Joseph M. DonabauerJoseph M. DonabauerVice President & Controller(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 636

Referring the bill (H.R. 5481), entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Sarabeth

M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and Adele

E. Conrad’’, to the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal

Claims for a report thereon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 17, 2000

Mr. COX submitted the following resolution; which was referred to Committee

on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Referring the bill (H.R. 5481), entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief

of Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron,

Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad’’, to the chief judge

of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a

report thereon.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. REFERRAL.

3 The bill (H.R. 5481), entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief

4 of Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron,

5 Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad’’, now pending in the

6 House of Representatives is referred to the chief judge of

7 the United States Court of Federal Claims.
2

•HRES 636 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROCEEDINGS AND REPORT.

2 Upon receipt of the bill under section 1, the chief

3 judge shall—

4 (1) proceed under sections 1492 and 2509 of

5 title 28, United States Code; and

6 (2) report back to the House of Representa7 tives, at the earliest practicable date, providing—

8 (A) such findings of fact and conclusions

9 of law that are sufficient to inform the Con10 gress of the nature, extent, and character of the

11 claim for the compensation referred to in the

12 bill as a legal or equitable claim against the

13 United States; and

14 (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably

15 due from the United States to the claimants.

Æ